# It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 7, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167 "2011-11-07T14:23:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/541 "2011-11-10T15:59:19Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > My Penn State friends of FB scare me. It’s like they’re all brainwashed. Joe Paterno can do no wrong, apparently. That’s interesting…it’s almost totally the opposite on mine. I’ve seen maybe one or two people support him, but that’s out of a contingent of about 50 (growing up in central PA, even if you didn’t go to Penn State you were probably a fan). Most of the commentary has ranged from “glad he’s gone” to “it’s a shame he had to go out this way, but it needed to be done.” ---
**Author:** ![Da\_Mikster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bb73d2/32.png) [@Da\_Mikster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Da_Mikster)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/542 "2011-11-10T16:00:47Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Yes, the repeated butt-fucking of 10-year-old children is just a bit of passing piffle, tempest in a teapot, nothing to really be upset about. Certainly not as important as PENN STATE FOOTBALL. Certainly nobody would have the moral responsibility to stop this from happening when they see a known predator parading his prey around campus openly. Without a victim coming forward, the University couldn’t prove a crime was committed, so they were limited in what they COULD do. (I really, really doubt Paterno asked for the investigation to be shelved) Now, they allegedly DID notify the Second Mile of the allegations, why didn’t the people at the charity pursue it? Why does nobody even care about that “moral failure”? Those folks were directly responsible for the kids! Oh, that’s right, it’s no fun in ruining the reputation of a not-famous person! Would Paterno have had reason to assume that nothing would be done? No. Would he have expected to have been told about the progress of an active investigation? Honestly? Not unless there was something they needed him to do. We don’t know if he attempted to follow up with those he reported to, because he hasn’t been allowed to speak. Without an indictment, the Athletic Department could do little more than take his keys and tell him not to bring kids on campus. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/543 "2011-11-10T16:05:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There is no question that Paterno’s actions in reporting the rape to his supervisor were compliant with the requirements of the law. > > There is also no question that tweeting “God, I hate them niggers and kooks” is not illegal. Does that mean a coach- even a long-serving, beloved one- shouldn’t be fired if that shows up on his Twitter page? > > He’s not being fired because he broke the law. He’s being fired because he did something stupid. You missed my point. I wrote “And yet, for some reason the law as written specifies reporting to one’s supervisor as one of the proper courses of action.” IOW, the people who wrote these laws did not think the idea of reporting child abuse to a supervisor was insane, as you and others do. Otherwise they would not have written the law that way. Maybe they too are from another planet. But I don’t think so. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the supervisors will deal with things correctly, including involving law enforcement as necessary. What happened in this case is that the system did not work as it should have, and outraged people with 20/20 hindsight demand blood for what most people would otherwise consider a reasonable course of action. > [@](#): > > Let me ask you what I asked **Starving** : if you witnessed the rape of a child at work, or were told that one of your employees was raping a child the previous day, would you report the matter to your supervisor\* and forget about it? I’ve already addressed this earlier, several times. If it was clear to me that there had been a child rape, then it would be obvious, if I saw the perpetrator continuing to hang around, that the supervisor had been derelict, and I would have to take further initiative myself. But if I only heard an ambiguous report from someone else, then it would not be obvious that proper procedures had been followed, and I would have no reason to doubt that a proper investigation had been done etc., and I would not have to involve myself further. So the crucial issue is what JP was told, and so far all evidence indicates that he was not told anything detailed. > [@](#): > > \*I’m being generous here by categorizing the athletic director as Paterno’s supervisor for the purpose of this analogy. It should be clear by now that Paterno answered to the trustees and no-one else. Other people have made this point as well, but I disagree with it. It’s seems pretty accepted that JP had enormous influence and power at PSU. But that doesn’t mean that he micromanaged areas that were outside of his area of responsibility. Suppose if he really wanted he could use his influence to shake things up in the physics department. That doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for everything that goes on in the physics department. If he passed along some info he heard to the proper channels in the physics department, I don’t think he would need to follow through on it. Obviously he was a lot closer in this case, but the same principle holds. He could certainly have influenced the course of action taken by Curley & Shultz, but that doesn’t mean he was required to oversee their actions in their area of responsibility, as long as he reasonably assumed they were doing their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Sinsaint](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@Sinsaint](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinsaint)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/544 "2011-11-10T16:15:38Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Wrong. At the time, he was a graduate assistant. Hardly comparable to a guy he’d know and worked with for decades. As someone already pointed out Joepa knew McQueary very well. Joepa began coaching McQueary in '94 I believe so he had known him for eight years when McQueary went to him. So well, in fact, he invited McQueary to his home to discuss what he saw. > [@](#): > > The accuser’s veracity is not what is in question. He could have just been wrong. The problem with your logic is that there is no reason for Paterno to protect Sandusky if he thinks he did it. Unless you truly think Paterno is some nut who just didn’t give a shit, I am not sure why you think he would participate in a cover up. What’s in it for him? I don’t want to sound rude but how often have you mistakenly thought you saw a man butt fucking a child? Oh, that’s right… never. I’m fairly certain a 28 year old man knows anal sex when he sees it. And I do think Joepa is a nut who didn’t give a shit. What makes you think Joepa isn’t a nut and that he actually gave a shit? Is it when he called the police immediately? Oh sorry, he didn’t do that. He decided to go about his day and talked to someone about the situation the following day. And do you seriously have to ask what’s in it for Joepa? Making sure his football program remained untarnished seems motivation enough. > [@](#): > > Kinda like the GA did, huh? That’s the issue. Why do people expect a person who heard this story in the third person to react more stridently and vociferously than the person who actually witnessed? Furthermore, you are only assuming the Paterno knew a child was in danger. If he didn’t really buy the story, which is what all the evidence points to, then why would he assume there was a victim in danger? That assumes I think McQueary’s actions were okay. I think he should be just as gone as the rest of them. And I’ll tell you exactly why I expect a person who heard this story third hand to act accordingly. Mr. Turchetta heard about victim 1’s abuse third hand. At that time he was the AD and football coach. HE called the authorities himself to report the information that was relayed to him via a third person. Then he told his superiors what he did. That is exactly what Joepa should have done. Had he done that victim 1 wouldn’t have even been a victim. And again, I’m assuming nothing. Joepa said McQueary was visibly upset. You don’t get upset when you see people horsing around in the showers. You get upset when you witness a crime. Let’s assume you are correct. McQueary shows up with this fantastic tale about a child being raped in the showers by Sandusky but Joepa thinks McQueary is lying. Then he turns around and makes this liar his assistant coach? Yea, makes sense to me to… :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Bullshit. That makes no sense. Why would he think he could cover it up given that everyone supposedly knew about this, and his complicity would only make him look worse in the end. There is no reason why anyone would do that. Joe Paterno isn’t stupid. > > Then why didn’t he retire a few years ago? You really think he would be more afraid to be known as an enabling idiot than to be thought of as the guy covering for a pedophile? Really? Simple. Up until then they had managed to keep things quiet. Joepa hoped it would continue that way. Really. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/545 "2011-11-10T16:17:07Z")
> [@Mince](#): > > Again, how hard would it be to ask questions, given a young boy’s (and possible future young boys’) livelihood was/were at stake? Do you have a cite that he didn’t ask questions to the relevant parties or others? > [@Mince](#): > > Do you really think [Paterno](http://www.wallpaperpimper.com/wallpaper/Computer/Windows_XP/Hear-No-Evi-See-No-Evil-Speak-No-Evil-1-QEKX0BZLJ6-1024x768.jpg) fulfilled his obligation regarding this issue? Depends on how you define “obligation”. I certainly think he could have done more right, but I am not sure the criticism he is getting is deserved. > [@diku](#): > > Ok, for Starving Artist, Da Mikster, and Brickbacon: > > Why does it matter what Paterno knew? Seriously, why does it? It was still his locker room, still his program. If he wasn’t in control of his program, then he should be out anyway. It matters because information is what we based the credibility of claims on. If Paterno did not have that information, the resultant bad judgment he showed is more understandable. Regardless, the problem I have with all this ex post facto judgment is chilling effect it has on anyone who desirous to be in the public eye. Clearly, this is an extreme example with much valid criticism being heaped on to Paterno, but the reality is that we all have likely trusted someone who is not a decent person. Everytime you assume the malice rather than ignorance, society loses a little bit of trust. Everytime you punish ignorance as though they were tantamount to the crimes of the accused, you marginalize the processes by which we build communities and social structures. We rely on our reputations, and the trust we have in others. Punishing everyone who makes a honest mistake in whom they trust does not encourage better judgment, or in this case, fewer crimes; it just means we degrade the validity of the idea itself. Everytime I see people browbeat some politician to repudiate a colleague’s comments (eg. Rev. Wright), or assume family members should know when others in their family commit crimes (eg. Mark Madoff), I wonder if people apprecaite the cost we are all paying because we have decided that misplaced trust and the inability to predict the future is a grand moral failing. Unfortunately, there are really shitty people out there, and they largely stay under the radar because they convince others that they are decent folks. There is generally not some conspiracy, complicity or willful ignorance; it’s just a number of people failing to see something because they are human. It doesn’t mean we should all go looking for blame in every corner and crevice to punish anyone tangentially related to the person who actually did the damage. ---
**Author:** ![Kolga](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e56c9b/32.png) [@Kolga](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolga)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/546 "2011-11-10T16:17:18Z")
> [@aerodave](#): > > There is a lot of armchair quarterbacking of morality going on. It’s easy to talk a big game when it comes to what you would do in a given situation. But the fact is that real people in real situations are notorious for making fantastically bad decisions. The right answer may be clear to an impartial observer, or even clear to the person in question a long time after the fact. But when confronted by a situation like what McQueary walked into, the number of people who would actually do the right thing is far less than the number of people who _think_ they would do the right thing. That’s because at that particular moment, mitigating circumstances or sheer shock can make people rationalize action (or inaction) that is at complete odds with their idealized standard for behavior. We all like to think we won’t stand idly by when someone is getting victimized…that we’ll stop the rape or tackle the purse snatcher. But if we all believe that, why does the opposite happen so often? > > The fact that it’s just human nature doesn’t excuse it. And it doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be made to suffer the consqeuences for their inaction. But it does explain how it can happen, why it may have happened in the PSU case, and why it happens elsewhere so regrettably often. I get that, and don’t disagree with you. However, both McQueary and Paterno have had NINE YEARS in which to say “you know, I think I made a mistake with that situation, and I really need to follow up with some people.” Perhaps an after-the-fact call to the police would have accomplished something, perhaps not. But a nine-year span was not long enough for either of those people to feel the necessity to push for more action. What that action might be, I don’t know. I do know that after that incident, Sandusky continued to be involved with Penn State, continued to use Penn State facilities for his charity, and ran into these guys on a regular basis. How either of them could just put the incident out of their minds is beyond me, and is the moral failing that outrages most people. ---
**Author:** ![aerodave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f08c70/32.png) [@aerodave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aerodave)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/547 "2011-11-10T16:28:17Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > I get that, and don’t disagree with you. However, both McQueary and Paterno have had NINE YEARS in which to say “you know, I think I made a mistake with that situation, and I really need to follow up with some people.” Absolutely. And they deserve to pay the price for that failing. My remark was directed more toward the posters in this thread, who find it easy to say “I know what I would have done.” That number is awfully close to 100% of the self-reporting sample. But, statistically, some number of those people are deluding themselves. Some number of them would act less heroically than they think. Maybe it’s not as many as the population-at-large, since we know that Dopers are clearly a cut above normal people. But that number isn’t zero, either. ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/548 "2011-11-10T16:30:54Z")
ESPN’s Joe Schad is reporting (via the live news crawl at the moment) that Paterno expects to issue a statement sometime today clarifying what McQueary told him about the 2002 incident. According to Schad’s source, Paterno recalls McQueary saying something about “fondling,” “touching”, or “horseplay.” So even if you accept that as Paterno’s version of events, when you’re talking about Sandusky in the PSU showers at night with a young child, those words, to me, are enough to place a very large moral responsibility on Paterno to find out what actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/549 "2011-11-10T16:34:38Z")
> [@Kolga](#): > > I get that, and don’t disagree with you. However, both McQueary and Paterno have had NINE YEARS in which to say “you know, I think I made a mistake with that situation, and I really need to follow up with some people.” Perhaps an after-the-fact call to the police would have accomplished something, perhaps not. But a nine-year span was not long enough for either of those people to feel the necessity to push for more action. Believe me, I’m down with Paterno being from what’s been alleged so far. But deep down I wonder this: let’s say I’ve worked with a guy for 30 years. I don’t know a lot about his life outside of work other than he’s married and he’s got kids and he does some charity work. Then one day out of the blue, someone else I work with comes up to me and says he saw said guy raping a kid in the showers. Do I believe him? If I tell him to tell the authorities, does the fact that I don’t see the accused on local TV in handcuffs make me think my co-worker was lying about the incident? I’d like to think to myself that, sure, I’m going to follow this up and protect the kids. But maybe there’s going to also be a part of me that thinks, “If my co-worker is lying, then I could ruin someone’s life for no reason.” (And, since my name is not Joe Paterno, I’m also going to be thinking that the authorities are just going to say “OK, but we’re not going to do anything until the eyewitness comes forward, so you’ve got to convince him to do that.”) Again, this is not to exonerate Paterno and I haven’t defended him in this thread. But I am saying, hold on a minute before you convince yourself you would have handled this perfectly. The very reason most child predators get away with so much is because people around them **don’t** handle things perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/550 "2011-11-10T16:36:07Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > ESPN’s Joe Schad is reporting (via the live news crawl at the moment) that Paterno expects to issue a statement sometime today clarifying what McQueary told him about the 2002 incident. According to Schad’s source, Paterno recalls McQueary saying something about “fondling,” “touching”, or “horseplay.” > > So even if you accept that as Paterno’s version of events, when you’re talking about Sandusky in the PSU showers at night with a young child, those words, to me, are enough to place a very large moral responsibility on Paterno to find out what actually happened. Riiiight. A 28-year-old in 2002 is going to use the term “horseplay”. Even more silly is the idea that anybody anywhere would actually use the term “horseplay” in reference to anal rape of a young boy. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/551 "2011-11-10T16:39:46Z")
> [@Sinsaint](#): > > I don’t want to sound rude but how often have you mistakenly thought you saw a man butt fucking a child? Oh, that’s right… never. I’m fairly certain a 28 year old man knows anal sex when he sees it. I don’t know why you’re so certain. I’ve never mistakenly thought I saw this happen but I’ve never actually seen it either. I mean, it’s not hard to imagine being sure of it, if you’re close enough and pay attention to detail. But I can easily envision a scenario in which the observer did not actually see genital contact, but saw them in close proximity and in the proper position and deduced - whether at the time or later - from their positions and motions etc. that it was anal sex. I would guess that’s what happened in this case. > [@Kolga](#): > > I get that, and don’t disagree with you. However, both McQueary and Paterno have had NINE YEARS in which to say “you know, I think I made a mistake with that situation, and I really need to follow up with some people.” Perhaps an after-the-fact call to the police would have accomplished something, perhaps not. But a nine-year span was not long enough for either of those people to feel the necessity to push for more action. > > What that action might be, I don’t know. I do know that after that incident, Sandusky continued to be involved with Penn State, continued to use Penn State facilities for his charity, and ran into these guys on a regular basis. How either of them could just put the incident out of their minds is beyond me, and is the moral failing that outrages most people. But JP had no reason to change his course of action. If he assumed it had been properly dealt with at the time, he would naturally continue to assume that. He didn’t get any new information after 2002 (AFAIK). ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/552 "2011-11-10T16:40:36Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > But deep down I wonder this: let’s say I’ve worked with a guy for 30 years. I don’t know a lot about his life outside of work other than he’s married and he’s got kids and he does some charity work. Then one day out of the blue, someone else I work with comes up to me and says he saw said guy raping a kid in the showers. Do I believe him? If I tell him to tell the authorities, does the fact that I don’t see the accused on local TV in handcuffs make me think my co-worker was lying about the incident? > > I’d like to think to myself that, sure, I’m going to follow this up and protect the kids. But maybe there’s going to also be a part of me that thinks, “If my co-worker is lying, then I could ruin someone’s life for no reason.” (And, since my name is not Joe Paterno, I’m also going to be thinking that the authorities are just going to say “OK, but we’re not going to do anything until the eyewitness comes forward, so you’ve got to convince him to do that.”) We don’t know what was going on in Paterno’s head at that time, but look at what we _do_ know. Shortly after McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, Sandusky is told that he is no longer Paterno’s heir apparent. By 1999, Sandusky is “retired” from football (he interviewed for a head coaching position with Virginia, but didn’t get it, so his retirement was not voluntary). Meanwhile, McQueary remains on the PSU coaching staff. What does that set of facts tell you about whether Paterno thought McQueary may have been lying? ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/553 "2011-11-10T16:42:39Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Riiiight. A 28-year-old in 2002 is going to use the term “horseplay”. > > Even more silly is the idea that anybody anywhere would actually use the term “horseplay” in reference to anal rape of a young boy. Yeah, the fact that Paterno vaguely recalls “fondling” as one of the words used by McCreary really tells us all we need to know about the subject and tone of their conversation. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/554 "2011-11-10T16:46:04Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > And yet they did. Demonstrably. It’s not rational but people aren’t, especially in the face of this sort of thing. It’s not clear that they did. Keep in mind that we are debating whether people KNEW he was a monster, yet decided to cover it up for some inexplicable reason. Again, people respond to incentives. What incentive did Paterno have to cover up this abuse in 2002? > [@aerodave](#): > > I know this post was made an eternity ago, but I think it reflects a point that had been ignored by a lot of people in this discussion—both on this board and elsewhere. > > There is a lot of armchair quarterbacking of morality going on. It’s easy to talk a big game when it comes to what you would do in a given situation. But the fact is that real people in real situations are notorious for making fantastically bad decisions. The right answer may be clear to an impartial observer, or even clear to the person in question a long time after the fact. But when confronted by a situation like what McQueary walked into, the number of people who would actually do the right thing is far less than the number of people who _think_ they would do the right thing. That’s because at that particular moment, mitigating circumstances or sheer shock can make people rationalize action (or inaction) that is at complete odds with their idealized standard for behavior. We all like to think we won’t stand idly by when someone is getting victimized…that we’ll stop the rape or tackle the purse snatcher. But if we all believe that, why does the opposite happen so often? > > The fact that it’s just human nature doesn’t excuse it. And it doesn’t mean that people shouldn’t be made to suffer the consqeuences for their inaction. But it does explain how it can happen, why it may have happened in the PSU case, and why it happens elsewhere so regrettably often. Very well said. It’s a point I have mentioned numerous times. > [@Sinsaint](#): > > As someone already pointed out Joepa knew McQueary very well. Joepa began coaching McQueary in '94 I believe so he had known him for eight years when McQueary went to him. So well, in fact, he invited McQueary to his home to discuss what he saw. Acknowledged earlier, but thats a fair point. I still think the difference in relationships in relevant. > [@Sinsaint](#): > > I don’t want to sound rude but how often have you mistakenly thought you saw a man butt fucking a child? Oh, that’s right… never. I’m fairly certain a 28 year old man knows anal sex when he sees it. And yet there seems to be some disagreement as to whether he actually told Paterno that. I am not saying he necessarily misidentified the act, he may have misidentified the participants. Either way, it seems evident to me that Paterno didn’t fully believe the accusation. My point was that such incredulity could stems from a number of things besides a knowing lie on the part of the accuser. > [@Sinsaint](#): > > And I do think Joepa is a nut who didn’t give a shit. What makes you think Joepa isn’t a nut and that he actually gave a shit? Decades of being a public figure with a good reputation. If anything, that reputation should lead us to believe he would not do something so reckless and callous. > [@Sinsaint](#): > > And again, I’m assuming nothing. Joepa said McQueary was visibly upset. You don’t get upset when you see people horsing around in the showers. You get upset when you witness a crime. Let’s assume you are correct. McQueary shows up with this fantastic tale about a child being raped in the showers by Sandusky but Joepa thinks McQueary is lying. Then he turns around and makes this liar his assistant coach? Yea, makes sense to me to… :rolleyes: No, he thinks the claim is not accurate. Not believing someone doesn’t mean you think they are lying. And let’s be honest here, this is a fantastic tale with little to no physical proof. I can understand why someone would doubt it given the history with the accuser. I ask you this. Say your co-worker came over and said they saw your SO or sibling raping a kid in an open, public place. They tell you they did not call the police themselves, but figured it was better to come to you for guidance on how to proceed. Do you immediately call the police? Why or why not? Do believe the co-worker? > [@Sinsaint](#): > > Simple. Up until then they had managed to keep things quiet. Joepa hoped it would continue that way. Really. What about this situation, given the facts we know now, would give someone confidence that that could be acheived? More importantly, WHY would Paterno agree to do this? What does he care if his former employee is convicted of a crime? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/555 "2011-11-10T16:47:00Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > We don’t know what was going on in Paterno’s head at that time, but look at what we _do_ know. Shortly after McQueary reported the incident to Paterno, Sandusky is told that he is no longer Paterno’s heir apparent. By 1999, Sandusky is “retired” from football (he interviewed for a head coaching position with Virginia, but didn’t get it, so his retirement was not voluntary). Meanwhile, McQueary remains on the PSU coaching staff. > > What does that set of facts tell you about whether Paterno thought McQueary may have been lying? Your time frame is off. The 1998 incident wasn’t the one McQueary witnessed. It was the one where campus police got Sandusky’s near-confession by listening in on the victim’s mother’s phone call to Sandusky. The 2002 incident is the one McQueary witnessed, more than 10 years after the incident that got Sandusky “retired”. Again, the idea that Paterno did not know about the 1998 incident (or at least that there WAS a complaint and the nature of it) is ridiculous, which makes his indifference about the 2002 incident the moral failure it is. ---
**Author:** ![DragonAsh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/db5fbb/32.png) [@DragonAsh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DragonAsh)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/556 "2011-11-10T16:48:16Z")
Your time line is slightly wrong: Sandusky retired in 1999 rather suddenly - again, after being widely viewed for years as the next coach after Paterno - for reasons that are unclear…but it comes after an investigation in 1998: > [@](#): > > 1998 – Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate. > > Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.” > > Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong. > > The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge. The McQueary incident was in 2002. We don’t know if Paterno knew about the 1998 incident - quite frankly, it’s hard to imagine he didn’t since Paterno was friggen’ God in those parts. And the resignation so soon after is very very strange. But, like I said - we don’t know if Paterno knew or not. Also, for you conspiracy nuts out there, Ray Gricar disappears - just vanishes off the face of the earth - a few years later, and hasn’t been heard from since. So we’ll never know why he decided on to press charges back in 1998. Oh, and you can add two more people to add to the list of guys that should rot in prison for a long, long time: > [@](#): > > Fall 2000 – A janitor named James Calhoun observes Sandusky in the showers of the Lasch Football Building with a young boy, known as Victim 8, pinned up against the wall, performing oral sex on the boy. He tells other janitorial staff immediately. Fellow Office of Physical Plant employee Ronald Petrosky cleans the showers at Lasch and sees Sandusky and the boy, who he describes as being between the ages of 11 and 13. > > Calhoun tells other physical plant employees what he saw, including Jay Witherite, his immediate supervisor. Witherite tells him to whom he should report the incident. Calhoun was a temporary employee and never makes a report. Victim 8’s identity is unknown. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/557 "2011-11-10T16:49:13Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > My Penn State friends of FB scare me. It’s like they’re all brainwashed. Joe Paterno can do no wrong, apparently. You’ve got it. Part of the reason I don’t like Penn State is the cult of personality that has evolved around Paterno. He may have run a clean program from the perspective of academic achievement and recruiting, but who knows what else was going on. When the coach is God, you want to avoid His Wrath at all costs. ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/558 "2011-11-10T16:50:54Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Your time frame is off. The 1998 incident wasn’t the one McQueary witnessed. It was the one where campus police got Sandusky’s near-confession by listening in on the victim’s mother’s phone call to Sandusky. The 2002 incident is the one McQueary witnessed, more than 10 years after the incident that got Sandusky “retired”. Again, the idea that Paterno did not know about the 1998 incident (or at least that there WAS a complaint and the nature of it) is ridiculous, which makes his indifference about the 2002 incident the moral failure it is. Sorry, you’re right about the timing. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/559 "2011-11-10T16:51:41Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You missed my point. > > I wrote “And yet, for some reason the law as written specifies reporting to one’s supervisor as one of the proper courses of action.” > > IOW, the people who wrote these laws did not think the idea of reporting child abuse to a supervisor was insane, as you and others do. Otherwise they would not have written the law that way. > > Maybe they too are from another planet. But I don’t think so. I think it’s reasonable to assume that the supervisors will deal with things correctly, including involving law enforcement as necessary. What happened in this case is that the system did not work as it should have, and outraged people with 20/20 hindsight demand blood for what most people would otherwise consider a reasonable course of action. Considering that virtually everyone outside of a bunch of drunk students are outraged at Paterno’s actions, it’s rather disingenuous to claim that “most people would consider [it] a reasonable course of action”. You are making an argument you know damn well is spurious- that one is required to do only what the law says. We’re obviously not talking about whether Paterno complied with the law. We are talking about whether he did the right thing (or approached it). > [@](#): > > I’ve already addressed this earlier, several times. If it was clear to me that there had been a child rape, then it would be obvious, if I saw the perpetrator continuing to hang around, that the supervisor had been derelict, and I would have to take further initiative myself. But if I only heard an ambiguous report from someone else, then it would not be obvious that proper procedures had been followed, and I would have no reason to doubt that a proper investigation had been done etc., and I would not have to involve myself further. So the crucial issue is what JP was told, and so far all evidence indicates that he was not told anything detailed. The perpetrator _did_ continue to hang around. He was using the university’s football facilities as recently as _last week._ I suppose the ambiguity of the report might be a factor, but McQueary testified that he told Paterno what he saw in fairly graphic detail. I’m having a hard time imagining what could be ambiguous about “I saw a little boy getting fucked in the showers.” > [@](#): > > Other people have made this point as well, but I disagree with it. It’s seems pretty accepted that JP had enormous influence and power at PSU. But that doesn’t mean that he micromanaged areas that were outside of his area of responsibility. Suppose if he really wanted he could use his influence to shake things up in the physics department. That doesn’t mean that he’s responsible for everything that goes on in the physics department. If he passed along some info he heard to the proper channels in the physics department, I don’t think he would need to follow through on it. Obviously he was a lot closer in this case, but the same principle holds. He could certainly have influenced the course of action taken by Curley & Shultz, but that doesn’t mean he was required to oversee their actions in their area of responsibility, as long as he reasonably assumed they were doing their jobs. After no action was taken, it was no longer reasonable to assume that Curley and/or Shultz were doing their jobs. It’s not as though Paterno waited a few months because he thought there was an investigation; it’s been at least 7 _years._ > [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > ESPN’s Joe Schad is reporting (via the live news crawl at the moment) that Paterno expects to issue a statement sometime today clarifying what McQueary told him about the 2002 incident. According to Schad’s source, Paterno recalls McQueary saying something about “fondling,” “touching”, or “horseplay.” McQueary’s testimony is that he told Paterno in fairly graphic detail (which is why I’ve stopped giving Paterno the benefit of the doubt as I did on page 2 of this thread). I’m certainly going to accept McQueary’s recollection over that of an 85-year-old, _especially_ considering that McQueary’s other testimony did nothing to paint McQueary as a good guy. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167/560 "2011-11-10T16:55:19Z")
> [@Da\_Mikster](#): > > Without a victim coming forward, the University couldn’t prove a crime was committed, so they were limited in what they COULD do. You let the **police** determine whether a crime was committed. So you **tell** the police. The **real** police, not the friggin’ **campus** cops. (The campus cops are technically real police, but what jayjay said way upthread about how “[t]he Campus Police office is where crimes embarrassing to the admin go to die” is true on far too many campuses.) There was nothing preventing anyone involved from doing this. If they’d done it promptly after they heard from McQueary, the police would have had a much better chance of ID’ing the victim, wouldn’t they have? The other thing they could have done was to ban Sandusky from the PSU campus(es) and take away his keys to any athletic department facilities that he had keys to. > [@](#): > > Without an indictment, the Athletic Department could do little more than take his keys and tell him not to bring kids on campus. And all they did was tell him not to bring kids on campus. They didn’t even take away his keys, AFAICT, let alone ban him from using any Penn State athletic facilities. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-time-to-officially-pit-joe-paterno-and-the-penn-state-football-program/602167.md?page=29)