No, I’m on board with that, having brought it way back here.
I did not participate in much of the later discussion of this matter, because they centered on SA’s “physics proof” and the paper towel test, and I don’t agree with any of that. But I still think it’s more likely than not that McQueary was mistaken, based on the Sandusky’s pattern of abuse and the shakiness of McQueary’s observation.
No.
Then I don’t understand your point. Sandusky should indeed get due process and the presumption of innocence, but there has to be a process - it’s not up to McQueary, Paterno and other Penn employees to make the judgement call on this, even if they personally believe Sandusky is innocent.
We don’t have to swing to the extreme you suggest (“Now you may disagree with this and find that any naked contact between men and boys in showers constitutes sex abuse”) but official investigation is warranted after such an event as McQueary described, no?
Of course.
Truth is that I was just responding to martu’s post as written, which seemed to preclude anyone thinking that non-sex abuse contact of this sort was possible. I’m not completely certain of the original context of that exchange.
That said, I myself do think it’s an important aspect. Because it has a bearing on whether Paterno could reasonably have assumed that an investigation had been properly instigated by C&S et al despite Sandusky’s not being arrested and tried. If it was obvious that criminal activity had occured, then it would have been obvious that there had been a cover-up. If it could reasonably have been a boundary issue again, then he would probably have assumed that this is what it turned out to be, and was dealt with appropriately.
But not significant beyond that. Obviously McQueary & Paterno were not in a position to make this determination. And in addition, even if it was just a “boundary issue” that’s also a problem as well, even if not criminal. (Especially as Sandusky had been warned about this in the past.)
Not only is it not self-evident, it appears to be a bizarre position.
Your position appears to be saying that having multiple professionals review the data and agree with the conclusion carries no more weight than having one individual come to that conclusion.
My contention is that having multiple professionals review the data and agree with the conclusions if substantially more significant than if it was a lone psychiatrist.
Can you confirm that you think having multiple people review and agree is not substantially more significant than a lone psychiatrist?
“Situation X” wasn’t her assessment, the “situation” were the events that happened between Sandusky and the child.
Chambers didn’t make that up nor did she have first hand knowledge just like the other psychiatrists.
Chambers had direct information due to interviews, but those were not the incident.
Agreed that it’s not a team that all signed the report.
But it would be impossible to argue that it’s not a group that agreed because in actual reality, it was a group of psychiatrists that all agreed with her assessment.
That’s just a fact, you can argue all you want and it doesn’t change that fact.
You’ve written a lot here and ignored my point.
I already agreed that my wording was not accurate.
But my point still stands: even with the most careful and conservative wording, your exact wording from the report, the point still stands that it’s a huge red flag that should have popped out at anyone aware of it when the 2nd incident happened.
I don’t recall acknowledging that my point was weak.
I don’t recall acknowledging that “JP and others were probably unaware” of the report (I said it’s possible JP didn’t see it and it’s possible that one of all of the other three did see it - no mention of what my opinion of the probability would be for any of that)
Saying that I acknowledged something I didn’t reduces your credibility.
My point that I think is valid in summary with wording that avoids the pitfalls of our recent exchanges:
The conclusion that was agreed upon by a group of psychiatrists was serious enough to warrant proper follow up when the 2nd incident happened for anyone that had read the report.
I gather this analysis of linguistic nuance has distracted us from the main issue:
Did Joe Paterno understand the mechanics of butt-fucking or not?
You know, this is nothing but wild speculation, but here goes - Joe Paterno was a small guy and would have been a small kid. He was a life long Catholic and a former altar boy. I’ve wondered if perhaps he’d been abused himself and “just keep quiet for the good of the organization” was lesson he’d learned from his priest. We’ll never know, of course.
Ah, but you’re forgetting that such abuse would have had to take place in the 1930s-40s, impossible since the filthy hippies hadn’t corrupted noble pure America yet.
Of course - what was I thinking!
It’s more significant. I’m not sure about “substantially”. What’s important here is that it’s not as significant as having a team of psychiatrists come to that conclusion.
I don’t understand how you could make the assertion in your second sentence here in light of what I’ve already written - and you quoted - which read “Note that I’m not saying that the fact that all her colleagues agreed with her when she put the question to them should be dismissed.”
You’re wrong about this. And your reference to “the incident” makes me wonder if you’re perhaps unaware of what “grooming” means in the context of pedophilia, and hence misunderstand the quote from the Chambers report. If so, you might profit from reading up on the topic, e.g. in Wikipedia.
In sum, someone concluding that the incidents meet the definitions of a pattern of grooming is not a comment about a particular incident and whether it constitutes sex abuse. It’s a comment about the relationship, and whether the pattern of this relationship seems to be that of a pedophile grooming his victim for the purpose of sex abuse.
It’s a much broader and also vaguer claim. Relationships are complex and multifaceted, and in addition, many of the characteristics of a pedophile grooming his victim would also be found in a mentor dealing with a troubled youth (which Sandusky was). Obviously psychologists have methods of distinguishing one from the other, but it’s a complex judgment, and it’s based on an assessment of the overall Sandusky-child relationship rather than any one particular incident. In light of this, the fact that Chambers was the only one who actually interviewed the kid, while the others were relying entirely on her description, including what details she chose to focus on and highlight, and how she chose to present them, meant that they were going to be much more heavily influenced by Chambers’ own view of the relationship than they would have been had they been directly involved in their own capacity.
There’s a difference in how confident you need to be before putting your name on something versus how confident you need to be before informally advising a colleague that you agree with their opinion.
To reiterate, I’m not saying the fact that they agreed with her counts for nothing. But it’s a misrepresentation to characterize it as a “team of psychiatrists” arriving at that conclusion.
[Also a bit weird that you persistently write “psychiatrists” instead of “psychologists”. Not sure what that’s about.]
OK, but my point is that your misrepresentation was significant. It sounded like you were arguing that your wording was only inaccurate in a technical sense, which is what I disagree with. In the context of your specific point - that someone aware of the Chambers report should have factored that into their assessment of the second incident - your misrepresentation was highly significant.
You didn’t acknowledge it explicitly, but it was implicit in what you said.
Your whole point was that Chambers’ report should have heightened the PSU team’s suspicions when the second incident happened. To the extent that the PSU team was unaware of the Chambers report, that point is weakened. By acknowledging that the PSU team may not have been aware of this report, you were implicitly acknowledging the weakness of your point about the existence of the report.
I was recalling a post from earlier in the thread. However, you are apparently correct. I believe I was misremembering the first sentence of post #4044. My apologies for this error.
Truth is that I was trying to cut you some slack when I said that. My point has been that you misrepresented what Chambers said. To the extent that you yourself minimized the import of your point, the misrepresentation is less significant.
It’s worth remembering that, much as the scandal in the Catholic Church was merited, the actual likelihood of an individual Catholic child being molested is not exactly high.
No, that wasn’t invented until the 80s.
Granted.
What are the many characteristics that are the same in a mentor dealing with a troubled youth and a pedophile grooming a victim?
See the description I quoted earlier from Wikipedia - subtract the sexual elements, and you’ve got something very close to a mentoring relationship.
After I subtract the sexual elements, I’m left with “To establish a good relationship with the child and the child’s family,…”
I’ll agree that a mentor would want a good relationship with a child and the child’s family. Could you tell me what characteristics of an adult mentoring a child are the same as a pedophile grooming a child?
Well, I’m sure it’s possible for a pedophile to feel a genuine concern for a child’s well-being and the stability of his or her family life, even as he tries to push his hand into the child’s pants, I guess.
I’m not sure what you’re looking for. The same things you would do to establish a good relationship with the kid (e.g. giving presents, spending time with them, telling them you care for them etc. etc.) can be used for either benign purposes for mentoring or for the purposes of grooming the kid for pedophilia purposes. Sorting them apart involves some degree of expertise and judgment.
Yeah, or the kid knowing when someone is trying to put a hand in their pants.
You’re certainly in your element, Bryan. No clue what the discussion is about, as always, but at least you kept it to one line. Your last one spilled over onto the second line.
I was hoping you could explain what you see as similar. A pedophile is trying to get children and adults to view the abnormal as normal. They are trying to get people to ignore their gut reactions. Given your examples, I think you see a mentoring relationship as something different - I wouldn’t expect a mentor to give presents, nor would I expect a mentor to express emotion to a child.
But, I think your observation shows why we should condemn Paterno and Penn State football. Paterno built a framework that gave Sandusky the cover he needed to isolate vulnerable boys. His association with Penn State allowed him to create his charity. I expect that in the world of pedophiles, Sandusky is revered in the same way as Ford was revered for assembly line mass production.
It doesn’t take an expert to identify a pedophile. It just requires people thinking about why an adult’s interest in a child doesn’t make sense. Pedophiles succeed when people suspend their disbelief. Pedophiles fail when people keep asking questions.