Wouldn’t some of the same things apply to some of the higher-ups like Paterno?
Also, FYI here is link to the full interview Sandusky gave to Bob Costas. It was a really, really bad idea for Sandusky to do the interview. This should go down in the annals of bad law advice.
It’s entirely possible. To me it’s also irrelevant. His locker room, his program, he’s the head of the program, and it’s on him. I personally think he knew something was up, but I don’t care. The head of the program has to go. And you can’t lay it at the feet of the AD and the college president, they had to go as well.
If Paterno didn’t want him to have access to the weight room or showers, he could’ve stopped it. And if he couldn’t, he should’ve retired a long time ago.
And yeah, when you have to think about the question “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?” for a minute, you probably shouldn’t go on TV.
I guess I think I’m a bit more forgiving of somebody who possibly suffered from shock and failed to act when something atrocious was happening right in front of him, versus someone who heard about it second hand and is in his position due to having strong leadership and decision-making abilities.
I don’t know. When you’re behind late in the game you go for the Hail Mary pass.
There is already an enormous amount of evidence that Sandusky touched these kids, and there’s little point in denying it. I imagine the lawyer already knows he is going to go with a “horsing around” defense, and wants to plant the seeds of that upfront.
OTOH, it’s hard to reconcile this with the statement in the GJ report that McQueary “noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him” (& that he “left immediately”).
Unless he means that he stopped the assault by means of having the victim and Sandusky see him. Which is not much, especially if he then left immediately.
I agree. I’m not sure how it squares with the testimony and it’s not clear how he “made sure” anything happened. If he just means he stayed long enough to make sure they saw him and Sandusky stopped raping the kid, that would be better than running away, but not exactly deserving of a medal since he also had no way of knowing what was going to happen after he left.
It says that Sandusky was still around the football team after 2002, and the players were active at Second Mile events which Sandusky attended. It is strongly implied that volunteering with Second Mile was the default way the football team helped out in the community.
Joe Paterno is listed as an honorary member of the board of directors of Second Mile. It had his clear support.
We already know from other sources that Sandusky was still allowed to bring children to the Penn State campus.
So put that all together:
Joe Paterno knows that Sandusky has abused a child in the shower.
But he does not prevent Sandusky from bringing more children to the Penn State campus or from hanging around the team. He does not prevent Sandusky from attending Second Mile events featuring Penn State football players. He does nothing to stop Sandusky from taking control of children in his role in Second Mile, a program which hands out Penn State trading cards to kids.
In short, he allows Sandusky to use Paterno’s image, and the image of Penn State Football, to obtain more victims. You cannot seriously argue that children and their parents would not be affected or impressed by Sandusky’s Penn State access and associations.
That wasn’t the question.
I am well aware that abusers do not all have access to football teams.
Some abusers use their position of trust in a church. Or as a parent. Or as a teacher.
But Sandusky used his position of trust as someone who had access to Penn State Football, who could hang around the players and bring kids to campus, who could attend Second Mile events with players. He had the implicit trust and support of Penn State Football.
To me, that makes Paterno extra responsible. He knew that he was putting Sandusky into a position that would help him obtain victims, and he did nothing.
Are there people in this thread actually describing ACTIONS you would count as a “cover up” and claiming that they definitely took place? Or are you entirely focused on the term itself, ignoring the context?
The crime was never reported to police, the witness was never interviewed by police, and the only punishment was a key getting taken away.
Whether or not you want to classify that as a “cover up” is a trivial point. I have no idea whether or not Paterno suggested anyone keep quiet, or agreed to keep quiet himself, and I don’t see people claiming that they know either. You are putting words in peoples’ mouths because of your fixed idea of what the term means. If you want to argue that “cover up” is a loaded term and should not be used, fine. I stopped using it for precisely that reason already.
Actually, in my opinion, if that’s what happened, it was actually worse than running away.
Think what must have gone through the poor kid’s mind: “Oh, thank god! Someone’s here who can save me! …Wait! Don’t leave me here with him!” It would have destroyed any inclination he had to tell on Sandusky. If someone could see him being raped and just walk away, why would anyone believe him when he told, much less do anything about it? And it just reaffirmed to Sandusky that he could get away with it, even when caught red-handed.
Maybe, but I’m leaning towards a big fat not. Even if we grant McQueary a pass because he caught a eyefull of traumatizing tragedy, Paterno et al. can’t say the same thing being second hand recipients of information. And if “normalcy bias” blinded them so badly, I’m really struggling why they even restricted him from bringing kids to the locker rooms. Either they thought his behavior around kids was fine or they didn’t. Their attempt at disciplining the guy is a tacit admission 1) that they were not paralyzed by denial and 2) they believed Sandusky’s behavior was foul enough to keep out of the atheletic department’s jurisdiction.
brickbacon, they handled him just like family members handle the dirty old uncle. Rather than get the law involved, the family will tolerate the uncle and even include him in all the get togethers etc. But the unspoken understanding is that he should not be left alone with the kids, because everyone knows he might pull something. Everything I’ve read about this mess reminds me of the misplaced family loyalties that ruin many victims of child abuse. There is no defense for it, even though we can clearly see why it happens.
The failings of human psychology are weak justification for almost a decades worth of inaction. How could they not be? All crimes probably can be traced to fear, to bias, or to
denial.
Bullshit. You claimed the following:
There is zero evidence for either part of that claim: that Paterno encouraged players to work with Second Mile, or that players were used to attract children to either Second Mile or Sandusky.
Second Mile isn’t Jerry Sandusky alone. You keep acting as though the charity and the molester are synonymous. The whole charity didn’t revolve around taking kids to Penn State games or locker rooms, and that access likely wasn’t in the pitch they gave to the parents of the kids they helped. The charity has helped over 100k kids, do you really think they were all lured in by the possibility of getting to see a real college locker room? This, again, just supports my position that you are not aware of how the charity works, or why Sandusky was able to groom these kids for abuse.
Did having that access make it slightly easier, maybe. But the lack of it certainly would not have prevented the abuse. It’s just a red herring.
They, themselves, have used the term cover-up to describe the action taken by Penn State officials (including Paterno) to deliberately keep knowledge of the abuse under wraps, and to prevent any police involvement. This is has been explicitly stated by numerous people.
I am not putting words in people’s mouth. I linked to two people in the previous page that explicitly used the term cover-up to describe the action by Penn State officials. I don’t have a “fixed idea” of what the term means, but words do have meanings. I am not even the one using the term, or alleging such a cover-up existed. In fact, I have long argued the opposite.
Least exculpatory statements ever.
You know, I could now go the rest of my life without ever hearing the word “horseplay.” Thanks for nothing scumbag.
Oh, I was right way upthread when I said he would characterize his one “apology” as “I’m sorry if he felt that way.”
Seriously. “Are you a pedophile?” should be about the easiest question in the world for anyone who isn’t a pedophile. It’s pretty goddamned automatic to exclaim “God no!” Anyone who has to start their response with, “Well…” ain’t looking good.
There are a lot of reasons it would be a bad idea to leave a criminal alone with his victim right after you’ve caught him in the act. We’re just talking hypothetically here because we don’t know what McQueary says he did to make sure the rape was over - maybe he stayed until the kid got his clothes and ran. Or maybe not. If people who’ve followed the investigation say he didn’t turn and run then I’d be inclined to believe he didn’t, but that doesn’t mean he did much of anything to make sure Sandusky didn’t hutr the kid any further.
What’s even more bizarre from my POV is that McQueary appeared in the months and years that followed in charity events that Sandusky also took part in…
Really? You show-up at charity events for children with a guy you saw rape a kid in front of you?
And if anyone thought things couldn’t get any scuzzier: Jerry Sandusky’s lawyer got a teenager pregnant. Think again.
The strange part to me isn’t whether this was a coverup to protect the football program or anyone’s reputation, it’s how these people saw or heard about what was happening and went to sleep at night without a problem. They saw Sandusky over and over again and were involved with him directly or peripherally, and you would think that had to remind them of what had happened. McQueary saw him rape a kid and Paterno heard at least two reports that he was doing some very inappropriate stuff, whatever exactly he thought it was.
GodDAMN. I seriously am starting to think this whole thing is performance art.
He married the girl, then divorced her in '03. Her tweet last night read “OMG, did he just say he’d leave my kids alone with Sandusky?” Or, something to that effect.
Performance art, indeed.
Of course players were used to attract children to Second Mile.
Second Mile handed out Penn State football trading cards to kids. They staged events using Penn State football players.
That is, by definition, using players to help get kids into the program. Please acknowledge that fact.
I believe that one of the (many) interviews I’ve heard contained reference to Paterno encouraging players to participate in Second Mile events, but I can’t find a recording to verify this.
Even so, that is not a necessary point. The reality is, the players DID participate in Second Mile events attended by Sandusky, Second Mile DID hand out Penn State football cards to kids, and Paterno DID know about this. The fact that Paterno was an honorary director of Second Mile suggests more involvement than this, but that isn’t an essential point.
No, I am acting as though Sandusky was helped in his goal of abusing children by his role in Second Mile and Penn State football. Because he was.
Obviously there were many legitimate volunteers working with Second Mile.
All the more reason that Paterno HAD to make sure Sandusky could not keep using the program to get children to abuse.
I disagree completely.
Without his Second Mile and Penn State connections, Sandusky is just a creepy old guy that no parent would be likely to hand their kid over to, and no kid would be likely to look up to.
That is not to say that he wouldn’t have found a child to abuse. But it would have been more difficult, there almost certainly would have been less victims, and it would have been more likely that one would have come forward sooner.
It is very similar to abuse by clergy, teachers, or relatives. An adult in a position of trust, and who is trusted by the other adults in the child’s life, is more likely to get away with abuse.
I would like you to acknowledge this fact as well.
Joe Paterno knew that Sandusky was a child abuser, but he continued to allow Sandusky to bring kids to Penn State, to hang out around the football team, and to hide behind the veil of trust afforded to him by Second Mile, a program which handed out Penn State trading cards to kids and of which Paterno was an honorary director.
I’m sorry, but that is really not ok.
Words have meanings, but “cover up” is vague.
It could mean, as you would argue, a complex conspiracy.
Others might use it simply to mean that several people knew of the crime, but none of them reported it to police.
I have already said, and will now repeat, that I have no idea if Joe Paterno suggested that anyone keep quiet, or agreed to keep quiet himself. Without going through the thread again, I don’t think almost anyone has said they know for sure that Paterno did either of those things.
applause Great comeback, sir.
I have to admit, I enjoyed the painfulness of the Sandusky interview. It’s nice when people dig their own graves. Saves trouble in the long run.
Agree. Though, I think his grave was already dug. In granite. Last night, he tried to blast himself out of the hole with dynamite.