Dear little Turnip,
By posting here you’ve helped prolong this tread. Expect only coal.
Better luck next year. Sincerely,
Santa
I was not challenging the fact that the DA disappeared or that the police listened in to a conversation with the mother and Sandusky (which I myself noted in this thread, a couple of days ago). But these are not relevant to your point. Your relevant point was that the decision to not charge Sandusky was not made by the investigators, but was made by a political person who was subject to political influence. This is what I was challenging.
That said, you’ve provided some support for that, in the form of the Post-Gazette article. Agreed (although you overstated it by saying that the cop was “dumbfounded” - in the article he says he was frustrated, but thought it was likely because of the DPW position, and he does not provide any basis for your suggestion that “Sandusky was not subjected to the same standards of evidence that would have applied to any old poor schlub”. To the contrary, he says that the DA was “the best prosecutor [he] ever worked with” and “not a man to be intimidated”).
The article does seem to contradict the Freeh Report (bottom of page 46), which I had been relying on - that report quotes Lauro (the DPW worker) as saying that “it wasn’t until Schreffler told me there wasn’t anything to the case that I closed mine”. So I suspect that there might be some CYA going on, on someone’s end.
But even if Schreffler’s account as quoted by the P-G is correct, that would not suffice for the issue at hand. What we’re discussing is whether it’s possible to easily determine whether or not someone is a pedophile, absent smoking gun evidence, based on the type of profiling done by psychologists. This is Robb’s claim, and what I’m disputing. The fact that this cop says he wanted to charge him with “corruption of minors” doesn’t change that.
For purposes of the issue at hand, it means the same thing. Sandusky was not given the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, but the point is that he was not branded a pedophile by experienced investigators. This indicates the difficulty in determining whether someone is or is not a pedophile, and contradicts those who say it’s a black-and-white issue that can only be missed by deliberately overlooking it.
It’s not. As noted earlier, the psych report was not as definitive as RaftPeople represents it to be.
The police investigators who looked into the incident had access to the psych report. It wasn’t enough for them.
To repeat yet again: I’m not claiming that the investigators concluded that Sandusky was not a pedophile. I’m saying they did not conclude that he was one. The discussion at hand, again, is how easy it is to determine if someone is or is not a pedophile. The 1998 incident supports my position here.
Good of you to determine for me the relevance of my point! Thanks so much!
In the most general sense, all influence is political. Meaning subject to the tradeoffs people make when balancing public interests, private (perhaps corporate or institutional) interests, and self-interest. Tell me, do you really think things would have gone the same way in 1998 if police had listened in on that conversation between the mother and Sandusky if Sandusky was a PSU janitor rather than a medium-famous and popular member in good standing of the PSU power club? I speculate (speculation only, but hey, this is just a message board) that the janitor would have been ‘detained’ and subjected to endless hours of repetitive interviews by investigators searching for the smallest inconsistencies in successive iterations of his story. The boy would have been interviewed by a team of psychologists equipped with anatomically correct dolls. And the mother would have sworn a statement about the “confession”. Ultimately I don’t know what the prosecutor would have done, but to suggest that he was immune from influence based on Sandusky’s status, even if only subconsciously, is silly.
It didn’t take much google-fu to find the links I offered, there are many more. I’m not going to bother searching for one where the cop uses ‘dumbfounded’ or a directly equivalent term. As for intimidation, I suspect that from a cop’s perspective that probably relates to hard nosed prosecutions of criminals and repeat offenders. After all, most crimes don’t contain the element of politics because most crimes are not committed by people of profound influence. But if you’re going to pick nits, I’ll settle for ‘surprised’ with a layer of ‘frustrated’.
If we are restricted to discussing psychological profiling’s sufficiency in determining pedophilia, “absent smoking gun evidence”, this is a tautology. Without a confession by the perpetrator and/or a witness statement (by the victim or an observer), either of which sound like a “smoking gun” to me, no amount of squikky conversation with a shrink would “prove” pedophilia. The crime requires a victim, not just a depraved mind. Is that your point?
As for my contention that
– No, it does not mean the same thing. Any more than “not guilty” means the same thing as “innocent”.
You recognize this, but claiming that it supports your position about the difficulty in determining if someone is a pedophile is a stretch. For all the reasons listed above, it is my belief that the hypothetical janitor, lacking Sandusky’s position but in otherwise identical circumstances, would indeed have been “branded a pedophile by experienced investigators”. And they’d have made the determination with some amount of ease.
You’re very welcome. The context of my remark was that I was aware that some details that you mentioned were accurate and when I said your memory was incorrect I meant as regards to what I consider the only relevant fact, i.e. your claim that the cop thought he was an abuser but was overruled by a more political entity, the DA.
I don’t know. Neither do you. It’s not out of the realm of possibility that everyone was influenced by Sandusky’s fame. OTOH, it’s also not out of the realm of possibility that a janitor would have been less likely to have been charged - a lot of famous people get charged because prosecutors are looking to make names for themselves as fearless populists in high profile cases.
FWIW, IMHO to the extent that Sandusky had an edge due to his fame it’s mostly not for political reasons altogether. Many people think they have a much better handle than they actually do on what type of person is likely to be a pedophile, and they tend to assume the profile is someone who looks and acts stereotypically creepy. This is not actually the case, of course, but it accounts for people assuming that such-and-such normal looking guy couldn’t possibly be a pedophile. Celebrities have this aspect magnified (unless they do in fact seem creepy or weird, e.g. Michael Jackson or Jimmy Savile), since even people who don’t know them personally are apt to disassociate people of their type from pedophilia. So Sandusky could theoretically have benefited from the notion that a regular guy like that wouldn’t be a pedophile.
But that too is speculative, and I would think it’s much less of a factor when cops, DPW investigators and DAs are involved.
ISTM that you’re reduced to just speculating with little or no evidence that everything is political and no matter who investigated the case they were awed by Sandusky and PSU.
Schreffler didn’t just fail to say he was dumbfounded - he pretty much contradicted it, in offering up a reasonable motive for the DA’s decision. And he also did not say he was surprised either.
This seems confused. First off, sex abuse is a crime and requires a victim. Pedophilia is a mentality and is not a crime and does not require a victim. However, if someone has performed an act with a child which may or may not have been sexual in nature, and it can be otherwise determined that this guy is a pedophile, then that would be strong reason to interpret that act with that child as being a sexual one, and the guy as acting out on his urges.
This happens to be the situation we are discussing, and the question therefore is: how easy is it otherwise determine that the guy is a pedophile, and thus to determine by extension that the act in question was sexual. This is what was happening in this case, in Chambers’ assessment that the nature of the Sandusky-kid relationship was of a “grooming” nature.
[The original context here bears keeping in mind - it concerns whether there is a meaningful difference between a “team of psychologists” determining that the relationship was grooming on the one hand, and one psychologist describing the relationship to her colleagues and having them agree with her on the other. That question pivoted on whether distinguishing a “grooming” relationship from a mentoring one is a straightforward black-and-white question - which is Robb’s position, or whether it’s a more complex matter - which is mine.]
OK, we disagree about this.
It’s worth noting, BTW, that, per your P-G link - and this is one thing I was unaware of or had forgotten - Amendola claims that after the meetings with the mother:
Now I don’t put much stock in many things Amedola has said about this case, but it’s not likely he would blatantly lie to a newspaper about an easily-verifiable fact. And if his facts are correct, it would imply that the case against Sandusky in light of the various interviews etc. was even weaker at the time than it now seems in hindsight.
And it would also lend additional credence to my argument (contra RaftPeople) that Chambers’ report did not amount to a conclusion that - in disagreement with the investigators - Sandusky was probably a pedophile. Because she was the kid’s therapist and the one who initially encouraged the mother to report it, and if she continued to maintain that Sandusky was probably a pedophile (especially if the others were only saying that they didn’t have enough evidence to indict) then it’s hard to see how the mother would have allowed ongoing contact. So it suggests that her report was, as I read it, an initial profile and a case for further investigation rather than a conclusion.
So - o - o - o - o… We’re all just speculating here. You no more than the rest of us. We agree on that.
But given the time, the location, and the culture, I’m still pretty confident that the scales of probability are tipped toward “no matter who investigated the case they were awed by Sandusky and PSU”.
As for Schreffler, I’m not going to debate his feelings any further. He publicly commented on his – what? Insert word here – about the DA failing to carry forward a case that he, Schreffler, believed to have sufficient merit to advance.
I don’t think I’m confused about pedophilia. While in the abstract it is a state of (depraved) mind, absent some discernible action it is irrelevant. We as a society do not go around investigating the contents of people’s heads unless cause is given. And in this instance no one would have bothered themselves about Sandusky’s state of mind absent his questionable actions in regard to this child. Only at this point do we try to decide if he was simply giving soap lessons, or setting the kid up for a future in buttfucking. And here we reach your nitpick about teams of psychologists, which I frankly do not care to indulge.
Otherwise, I’m not sure how substantively we disagree. The relationship between Sandusky, the boy, and his mother seems – well, complicated. Given that the questionable incident apparently did not involve forced sexual contact, given the apology, given the possible benefits to the child and his mother of a positive relationship with Sandusky, and given the benefits to Sandusky of burying the transgression beneath a layer of cultivated innocence, I am not surprised by Amendola’s claims. I’m willing to accept that the psych report can be viewed as “an initial profile and a case for further investigation rather than a conclusion” [quoting you].
My new year’s resolution is going to be not to open this thread again.
Wimp.
I’m OK with all this, but then I don’t understand what point you were making in the fourth paragraph of post #6138.
Unless at that time you did not appreciate that the context of my post was about my “nitpick about teams of psychologists, which [you] frankly do not care to indulge.”
This is pretty much my position.
That’s great.
And I have a good idea for you for next year’s resolution. Maybe you can get to the point where you can just not open threads that no longer interest you without a separate post in that thread to inform everyone of this fact.
Perhaps that’s the reason I ended that paragraph with an interrogative.
And, that paragraph having ended with a quote from you, I was pretty sure that would be the case. So now we’ve sufficiently thrashed this particular prone equine, yes?
As for the relevance of all this to the OP, I’ll offer a comment (probably not too different from what I asserted way back upthread). Advance the timeline to McQueary’s report to JoPa. Regardless of the actual resolution of the 1998 incident, JoPa should have seen red flags. Even attributing a rather large measure of selfishness which may or may not have been deserved, I would have expected his thought processes to run:
“Damn, another accusation! Whose reputation does Sandusky think he’s messing with? I don’t know or care if there is anything behind this or not, but surely someone, somewhere will haul out 1998 and start screaming about connecting the dots. Time to distance myself and my programs from any possible taint. And the best way to accomplish that is to sell Sandusky down the river. I’m gonna rat him out, and make a hairy nuisance of myself about it, so I am publicly seen as taking the high road. I’ll isolate him and make sure no one goes to his rescue. And if Jerry is innocent, well, tough shit. He’ll just have to take this one for the team.
“Oh, and yeah, maybe some kids will be protected too.”
Even when I ascribe less-than-noble motivations, it seems that enlightened self interest alone should have produced a different result. Let alone the possibility that JoPa might himself have felt a “who will think of the children?!!?!” shiver down his spine. But instead JoPa seems to have gone the rug, broom route. I might not pit him just for being less than noble, if that was even the case, since I’m not certain I am totally noble myself. But Starker’s “JoPa was a wide eyed innocent!” defense is total bullshit. And simple expediency should have moved JoPa to snatch his own chestnuts as far from Sandusky’s fire as possible, even if all that showed at the time was a puff of smoke. The fact that he did not, and instead actively chose the route of downplaying the issue with minimal reporting and zero follow-up makes him surprisingly stupid, possibly uncaring, and certainly an object of disgust in my eyes. So yes, once again let us “Pit Joe Paterno”. Knowingly or unknowingly, his actions enabled a pedophile.
Myself, I go through the same thought process but draw a different conclusion, perhaps because I go lighter on the “stupid” part.
It’s hard for me to believe that he could have been stupid enough that he would fail to realize that covering up for a serial pedophile would be exposing him and his beloved program to far greater risks than exposing him. So I conclude that the overwhelming likelihood is that he was genuinely unaware of Sandusky’s nature and crimes.
Granted.
But while unknowingly enabling a pedophile is no Medal of Honor, there’s still a huge huge difference between enabling a pedophile knowingly or unknowingly, so it’s worth making the distinction.
Remember that Paterno was inside the bubble, too, probably more deeply than anyone else. He was already Saint Joe to the PSU community, and he’d have to have been a very unusual human not to let that rub off on him and affect his own judgment, about his own image and that of his football program most of all.
And the fact remains that he *did *succeed in keeping it covered up, for many years. The longer it went on, the *lower *the perceived risk there was in it. The high-risk period was right after the discovery, and when it seemed to go away, as in fact it did, was it really “stupid” to think it would never come up in public?
I’m not just saying Paterno would have to be monumentally stupid to think those particular episodes would never come to light of their own - although that too was a big risk, especially since no one even contacted the 2001 victim, and no one had any way to know the kid or his parents wouldn’t report it to the police the next day.
I’m saying if Paterno knew that Sandusky was a pedophile and had a past history as well, then he would have to know there was a huge risk that he would subsequently perpetuate some new incident, and there’s no reason to assume it would be in a situation that JP & PSU could cover up for. Especially as Sandusky’s involvement with PSU at this point was very peripheral.
It’s unlikely that he could have been stupid enough to fail to realize that.
It had worked every time he’d tried it. Why would it be stupid of him to think it might not work in the future?
It worked all those other times because in his previous incarnation as Jack the Ripper he had murdered all the witnesses, plus all the witnesses to those murders, and so on.
But by this point he had adopted the “Naive Old Football Coach” disguise/persona, so it was a different situation.
I cannot stretch my brain around the conclusion that JoPa was unaware of sexual abuse of children. But you are saying he may have been aware of sexual abuse in the abstract, but was specifically “unaware of Sandusky’s nature and crimes”. Again this seems a rather limited and pedantic statement. We’ve gone around and around on Sandusky’s possible “nature” (pedophile: yea or nay?) and I don’t want to go back down that rabbit hole again. As for awareness of “crimes”, well, that depends on the details and the credibility of McQueary’s report to JoPa, on which we have conflicting testimony. If you insist on a restriction to proven crimes, demonstrated crimes, or even probable crimes, well – OK,
But McQueary’s statements to JoPa should surely cause any moderately aware human to consider the possibility of crimes. And now we’re back to square one, with the reporting, the vigor of pursuit of the reporting, and the follow-up of the reporting. So even if JoPa was “genuinely unaware of Sandusky’s nature and [any past] crimes” he had what most of us seem to believe was ample evidence of possible present crimes. Ample enough to spur a real investigation, not a stern finger wagging (and that rug and broom) by higher-ups in the PSU establishment.
I’ll readily admit to there being a difference. But in this case JoPa’s “unknowing” was a result of a refusal to believe, and a deliberate effort to discount and minimize the initial evidence available, resulting in additional evidence not being uncovered for years. It worked, for a long time. Resulting, again, in the enabling of a pedophile. No forgiveness of JoPa here.
Exactly. Which brings things back to where they were way back when I made my first post to this thread - the crux of the issue is what it was then - what did McQueary communicate to JP (& the others)?
IMHO, the evidence from the Sandusky trial tends to strengthen the case for McQueary having failed to communicate his point (even to the extent that he was trying to communicate what he now says he was, which is itself uncertain). That evidence being the testimony of Dranov, and the concession by McQueary that he spoke in euphemisms and circumlocutions.
Evidence from RL as well as discussions on this board show that people frequently overestimate greatly the extent to which they’ve accurately communicated their thoughts to other people, and this is even when - unlike McQueary - they are being as blunt and direct as possible.
This is all the more so in the case of McQueary, who was being circumspect, and who clearly failed to communicate correctly with Dranov, at least. So I don’t put much stock in his own assessment that he got his point across to JP & the others. (This is even leaving aside the self-serving aspect of this assessment.)
Correct. The issue is that he may have thought there was a “real investigation”.
If it could be shown that Paterno knew that there was only “a stern finger wagging (and that rug and broom) by higher-ups in the PSU establishment”, then I agree with you.
This is what I said:
You responded with:
And this is a quote from the report:
“My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern…”
Looks like my summary represents the report’s conclusion accurately.
I thought we were clear on this already.
The two sentences you quote are similar. But I think saying a group agreed does not adequately convey the connotation that one psychologist relayed the situation to her colleagues who concurred with her opinion, versus others independently looking at the situation.
Plus, in addition to the part that you quote you also said, in that same post:
As above, I think it’s a bit misleading to call this preliminary profile a “competing analysis” and “opposing data” in conflict with the results of the actual investigation.
I apreciate that you disagree, and you’re entitled to your opinion of course. But that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
You know, to better ingratiate myself with the facts of the thread, I read a paper by Ray Blanchard about the paedophilia criteria in the revised DSM4, which includes acting on the disorder. From that criteria, I can’t see the theoretical basis of judging someone as a “likely paedophile”, as much as it would help the case of the “nattering nabobs”. In fact, it distinguished between those with a paraphillia and a disorder, in that the latter had evidence of acting on the disorder - the former couldn’t be diagnosed with anything classified in the DSM, as odd as it may seem (the text revision of the DSM4 came out around 2000 IIRC).
On the other hand, I’ve been listening to trap music, which seems to proceed with utter clarity. Which is a relief.
All the more reason, I figure, for Paterno to refer McQueary to the police. If McQueary was making serious allegations against a former PSU staff member, and vague allegations at that, let the professionals sort it out. If McQueary turns out to be lying, fire his ass pronto, since false accusations of this kind shouldn’t be tolerated.