Skip to content

Paterno family lawsuit against NCAA adds Penn State as defendant

Franco Harris, Jay Paterno AP

Perhaps lost in the buzz surrounding signing day is the latest development in the lawsuit filed by the family of former Penn State head coach Joe Paterno against the NCAA. After making some changes to the original lawsuit, the Paterno family has added Penn State as a nominal defendant after the NCAA argued the university should be labeled as a defendant in the case. A nominal defendant is one that is included in a lawsuit due to a technicality in order to make an accurate ruling but has no responsibility or fault in the ruling.

According to a report by Penn State student newspaper The Daily Collegian, the changes to the lawsuit were made to appease the NCAA but the family is not seeking any damage or compensation from the school.

“To be clear, we do not seek any monetary damages from Penn State, nor do we ask that the court order Penn State to take any action.” attorney for the Paterno side, Wick Sollers said in a statement. “We ask only for a declaration that the plaintiffs have rights under the NCAA rules that were violated, and that the Consent Decree imposed by the NCAA is null and void.”

The Paterno family is seeking to overturn the sanctions levied by the NCAA against the football program in the fallout of the Jerry Sandusky scandal and publication of the Freeh Report. It is the Paterno family’s belief the university was pressure to sign off on a consent decree, which university president Rodney Erickson did in the summer of 2012. Because of the way the NCAA handled the Penn State case, the Paterno family claims a number of assistant coaches, including Jay Paterno, were victims of defamation and because of that have not been able to find a job coaching football since being let go by the university once Bill O’Brien was hired in January 2012.

One of the demands of the consent decree mandated Penn State would accept whatever punishment the NCAA handed down without challenging the decision. This is not typical of NCAA protocol that allows for a university to appeal a decision made by the NCAA. Penn State was issued a four-year postseason ban, significant reduction in available scholarships and a $60 million fine to be paid over the course of the sanction period. Current players and recruits were also given a free transfer by the NCAA. Since then the NCAA has cut back on the scholarship restrictions and is allowing Penn State to gradually work back up to 85 total scholarships.

Penn State was given back five scholarships for the Class of 2014, going from 15 to 20. The Nittany Lions will have a full 25 initial scholarships to offer in the Class of 2015.

Permalink 79 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big Ten Conference, Penn State Nittany Lions, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
79 Responses to “Paterno family lawsuit against NCAA adds Penn State as defendant”
  1. hor2012 says: Feb 5, 2014 8:33 PM

    The Paterno family should just leave this alone. Anyway you dice it Joe Pa failed to protect the children from that monster

  2. corvusrex96 says: Feb 5, 2014 9:02 PM

    If they really want to help PSU then they should just shut up.

  3. thefiesty1 says: Feb 5, 2014 9:24 PM

    Why has this sorry story resurfaced? Give it up and move on. Let the victims move on with their lives.

  4. dmvtransplant says: Feb 5, 2014 10:08 PM

    Penn State just had 2 winning seasons, a winning record against ranked teams, an All-American QB, a top 25 class, sanctions reduced and two decent coaches in the last 2 years.

    Why in the hell is anyone still paying attention to the Paterno family? The program has moved on and with the exception of the bowl ban being over they couldn’t be in better shape.

  5. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 5, 2014 10:18 PM

    Fine,

    The Paterno family wants to amend the lawsuit to include Penn State, great, let them do it.

    Why not ask the State to amend the felony charges in the upcoming felony trial with Spanier, Culey and Schultz to include Joe Paterno as an “unindicted co conspirator” and offer reduced sentences to the three on trial for testimony against the “unindicted co conspirator” and watch the Paterno family rush to defend their late father in a criminal felony trial?

    The upcoming trial is not going to be pretty and the Paternos know it.

    JoePa, right or wrong, was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion and the Paterno family
    is doing a great disservice to their dad by trying to rewrite the verdict.

    Penn State has suffered enough and to keep acting like drama queens is not helping Penn State move on from the Sandusky affair.

    RTR

  6. jimw81 says: Feb 5, 2014 11:21 PM

    The felony charges against Spanier, Culey and Schultz might be getting dropped because of the state’s court ruling in the overturning priest trial in philadelphia. the only thing they would be tried on is on perjury to grand jury.

  7. dirtyharry1971 says: Feb 5, 2014 11:38 PM

    This family and this school just need to go away already. Oh and this fan base too

  8. normtide says: Feb 5, 2014 11:55 PM

    Dragging this out only hurts the university. And no matter what, people’s minds are made up about Joe. It’s really not fair to the victims either. Then again, this family has a history of not caring about these kids. In that way, Joe’s legacy does live on. Sadly.

  9. keltictim says: Feb 6, 2014 5:02 AM

    This continued non sense is doing almost as much harm to the school as the monster himself. Ok, that’s a bit over dramatic, but good lord victims cannot move on while these stories keep popping up. If these coaches are having a hard time finding work the best thing to do is to give it time. In silence. Laying low and giving people time to forget/move on is the only way for them to return to coaching. And yes more than likely they are gonna have to start at the very bottom and work their way back up. That’s the case in every walk of life when a scandal erupts. College football is littered with stories of players and coaches who screw up or are connected to a screw up, go to a juco school for a year or two then make their way back to division one. See Newton, Cam. Prime example.

  10. dutchman1350 says: Feb 6, 2014 9:12 AM

    I’m amazed at the comments above. “let it go”? If these people actually read the documents, they will realize the cover up is a political coverup, involving the former Govenor, not the greatest coach in college football history. If this was such a slam-dunk case, why are we 2.5 years later and no court trial? These men did report the incident and nothing was done.

  11. mogogo1 says: Feb 6, 2014 10:30 AM

    I know the Paternos are probably pretty well set, but I hope they don’t blow all their money on this. I get they think this is somehow going to help save JoePa’s legacy, but in reality it’s not going to make any difference–everybody’s mind was made up one way or the other long ago. And at this rate, the sanctions will be over before they ever have a chance to “win.”

    Also, something that I’ve always wondered: Could this suit have been filed by any citizen of Pennsylvania? (Because I’m not seeing how JoePa’s family has any special standing regarding any sanctions against Penn State.) And, if that is true, are there similar suits filed by others?

  12. masher1965 says: Feb 6, 2014 11:37 AM

    Joe Paterno’s legacy will always be tied together with Jerry Sandusky and the rape of children. This continued nonsense, the futile hope of restoring a long gone saintly image of a man that stood by and did nothing and closed his eyes to a monster , is simply dragging the school, the INNOCENT coaches , and most importantly, the victims through more mud and stealing more time away from them. The Paterno family , if they had a soul and conscience, would have moved on by now. Joe Paterno CLAIMED he cared for his “kids” and the school, obviously , by his lack of action with Sandusky and the acts of his family, was simply a front , a lie. He was a false god, people , nothing more. He was a good football coach, but a flawed man that cared more about winning football games , a legacy , and money than anything else

  13. anchordown873 says: Feb 6, 2014 11:54 AM

    @masher1965

    There was no lack of action by Paterno. When McQueary told what he had seen Paterno went to the school president, AD and the chief of the PSU police department, which on a campus that size is an actual police department and not a bunch of rent a cops. When people say JoePa did nothing and didn’t report it to the proper authorities they couldn’t be more wrong.

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/933794-in-defense-of-paterno

  14. mike4949 says: Feb 6, 2014 3:43 PM

    To Masher

    What JoePa did was unconscionable! Had the adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger or the kid his grandson, Paterno would have called 911 — not wait 24 hours before notifying an athletic director!

  15. themob531 says: Feb 6, 2014 4:29 PM

    Joe Pa isn’t guilty of anything. The majority of comments reflect an ignorance from people who are simply media lemmings. The NCAA overreached and Mark Emmert is a scumbag. Paterno wasn’t a witness to the shower incident and informed his superiors to what McQueary told him. McQueary never said he saw any rape. Besides, the grand jury acquited Sandusky of that particular incident and the DA said there was NO EVIDENCE that Paterno covered anything up. Now all of you misinformed morons can claim he Paterno had to know what Sandusky was doing given he wasn’t employed by Penn State at the time but he was a 75 year old man who did what he should have done based on the information at hand.

  16. theologyarchaeology says: Feb 6, 2014 6:36 PM

    all those speaking against joe paterno and his family are using emotion and not facts, injustice not justice, unfairness not fairness.

    the ncaa overstepped its boundaries when it leveled the sanctions and it needs to be disbanded because of it.

    the ncaa was wrong and is corrupt. it has no say on this issue.

  17. thekingdave says: Feb 6, 2014 7:35 PM

    Lol @ the guy citing a Bleacher Report article. That’s like citing a 3rd graders book report for a doctoral thesis.

  18. mike4949 says: Feb 6, 2014 8:19 PM

    To Themob153

    Pennsylvania Laws and Federal Laws (Including the Cleary Act) regarding the specific process for reporting of child molestation to a superior in public education are always immediately trumped, always immediately ignored, always immediately dismissed, always immediately set aside when a kid is undergoing a molestation at the exact same time of discovery. That kid in Shower 2001 was in immediate “real time” emotional and physical danger that evening, through the night, and the next day and beyond. He needed help immediately! And yes, there are no facts, no evidence, no proof that can dispel this observation. When a kid is found in the state of alleged molestation, you and the police always assume the worst and hope for the best. And that “worst” is always assumed to continue until a policing authority apprehends, steps in, and separates man from child.

    When JoePa and McQueary were performing their pathetic conferencing ritual, a little boy, at the exact same time, was being terrorized!

    PS Sandusky was found guilty of four charges emanating from McQueary’s witnessing!

  19. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 6, 2014 8:20 PM

    Fact,

    JoePa is dead.

    JoePa was a good soldier and only followed orders by reporting the rape to the AD. Never mind the fact that as a good Catholic of conscience and just an ordinary citizen, JoePA could have very easily picked up the telephone and called the State Children Protective Services. His reputation would still be intact.

    Penn State took a deal so the NCAA would not come in and investigate the entire Athletic program with a fine tooth comb and face an anal exam that would make Sandusky proud.

    The Paterno family has no standing in the University decisions. The victories belong to the school, not JoePa or his family.

    The longer this goes on the more petty the Paternos look and the more blemished both the Paternos and Penn State become. Should the the PSU Administrators walk, then everything screams coverup in order to protect the Governor.

    If I were the NCAA I would rescind the deal and notify the current administration that
    the NCAA will be arriving to investigate the entire athletic program and make the University of Miami investigation look like a walk in the park. Drag the investigation on for three to four years and have every one of the Penn State sports be negatively recruited against by fellow B1G schools , the ACC and the SEC and then see how the alumni like losing seasons and how highly regarded the Paterno family is viewed then.

    The Paternos just need to go away.

    RTR

  20. themob531 says: Feb 6, 2014 9:42 PM

    @Mike 4949

    True. Sandusky was convicted of 4 charges relating to victim #2 but those four charges were the four typical charges he was convicted of relating to all the other victims too. The charge I was referring to and the one that appears to be the most relative to this whole allegation was Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in which he was acquited. That’s right, acquitted unlike in some of the others it was merely dropped. So what is my point? My point is that McQueary not only didn’t witness a rape but the grand jury didn’t believe McQueary’s testimony either. So Paterno is suppose to run around alleging something that McQueary failed to do himself and people are suppose to believe him? Joe Paterno told the right people who are responsible for those matters and he was thrown under the bus not only by McQueary( who was protecting himself by justifying his own failure) but also the NCAA who threatened even more punishment if Penn State didn’t agree to their offer. I’m not saying Sandusky isn’t guilty but Paterno is a victim too.

  21. mike4949 says: Feb 6, 2014 10:09 PM

    To Themob

    Thank you for your sincere reply. I respect your opinion but fined it biased and non-objective.

    My attention has always been first and foremost upon that victim child in 2001 whom the courts later found had been sexually violated by Jerry Sandusky. Your attention has fully been the complete vindication of JoePa by reinterpreting and reshaping those legally accepted evidences. A vindication that refuses to acknowledge the great man experienced a severe lapse in character when he instantaneously removed all consideration for the kid’s well-being when accepting total responsibility for properly resolving the incident. And the JoePa I knew and admired from afar would today accept the accountability and the blame for placing PSU, the football program, and his own reputation over the immediate needs of that kid!

    Do you have any disagreement with the following two scenarios?

    • Had that adult in Shower 2001 been a complete stranger, is there any doubt Paterno, McQueary, the father, or Dr. Dranov would have instinctively called 911 – immediately without hesitation? No doubt because if you call it “fondling,” “touching,” “caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed private gymnasium at a major university on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt, a legalized suspicion as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior!

    • Had the child had been JoePa’s grandson, and JoePa was approached by McQueary asking what he should do, is there any doubt a 911 call would have been instinctively made by either man — immediately without hesitation?

    Thus does anyone disagree with the self-evident reason why obviously and purposefully the police were never called? They were never called because the adult was Jerry Sandusky with whom all four had a many years acquaintance. And this association was the reason all concern for the alleged victim was instantaneously abandoned – why the kid’s fate was trivialized and ignored. Jerry Sandusky became the total interest – not the kid! And that is why all four of the men’s behavior must be totally and completely condemned. And if one wants to bring Curley Schultz, and Spanier into the arena of accountability, they have every legal and ethical right to do so!

  22. s0krat3s says: Feb 7, 2014 1:07 AM

    Its sad that this much time has gone by and yet so many people are not aware of the truth. McQuery witnessed the event (instead of interceding). He then reported it to JoePa. Paterno, immediatly set up three separate meetings with school officials. In all three meetings McQuery denied witnessing anything. So all Paterno had was a man who cried wolf. That wasn’t anything to go to the authorities with.
    The school, knowing of this potential incident and a former alleged incident (investigated by authorities but no charges found), did not have anything to go to police with. For anyone familiar with such cases, if you have no victim admitting a crime, no criminal admitting a crime, no witness admitting a crime, then you have no crime to pursue.
    So the school did the only thing it could, and banned Sandusky from ever stepping on Penn State property.

    Outside of the first incident (investigated, but nothing found) & second alleged incident (no victim or witness), every other criminal act charged against Sandusky had absolutely NO connection with Penn State.

    The Freeh report is sloopily put together and completely ignores all of this in an attempt to make elaborate conspiracies that make Freeh look like James Bond discovering the biggest cover-up in history. If you research his work you will find that countless times his other such reports have been torn apart by fact-checking.

    The school, in its hurried effort to move past this signed a horrible agreement with the NCAA that no sound legal mind would have ever accepted.
    Sandusky’s crimes, especially the ones that could actually be proven at the time of his arrest all happened outside of the confines of Penn State grounds. Yet somehow the taxpayers are put on the hook, paying the NCAA 60 million for crimes not committed on their property. Just as worse the NCAA throws downs fines and scholarship bans which only effected a group of student athletes who are more than 15 years removed from the last time Sandusky ever stepped foot on campus.

  23. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 2:32 AM

    To Socrat

    How sad your oversimplification to rationalize the horrific misbehavior of so many.

    Based on the GJ Presentment, the Sandusky Trial, and the 2011 Preliminary Hearing, it was very clear to McQueary’s father that a sexual attack had transpired, to Schultz that a sexual action had occurred, to Paterno that something of a “sexual nature” happened, to Dr. Dranov that sexual sounds were heard by the redhead. All of these facts, no matter how they were interpreted or understood by all four men, were abundantly enough to warrant calling a policing authority –immediately without hesitation.

    Whenever there is a suspicion that a child is in danger, you, me, and everyone else has the ethical and legal obligation to call 911. It’s not up to you nor me to analyze the authenticity of a witnessing — only a policing authority is responsible for that kind of investigation.

  24. dkhhuey says: Feb 7, 2014 11:33 AM

    Joe Paterno knew
    Joe Paterno covered it up
    Joe Paterno turned his head
    Joe Paterno enabled Sandusky to anally rape and molest children for over a decade!

  25. themob531 says: Feb 7, 2014 11:59 AM

    @Socrat

    Hearing slapping noises isn’t enough to make an accusation of rape just because McQueary presumed the worst. If McQueary’s father and a prominent Pennsylvania doctor who was present when Mike was explaining the situation felt that they had enough to call local police I believe they would have for they had no conflict of interest. The whole problem is Mike McQueary’s testimony. He claims to have simply heard noises, doesn’t call the authorities like everybody expected Paterno to do, and then continually changes his story to justify his failure to do so. Furthermore, this is the first incident involving potentially inappriate contact with children that any of them were aware of relating Sandusky. Given that Mike didn’t actually witness anything I believe they were compelled to give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt. Not only that but some of the victims have changed the dates of their molestation in order to get compensated. Why is Penn State settling with Matt Sandusky? How are they responsible?

  26. themob531 says: Feb 7, 2014 12:23 PM

    My last post was meant for Mike4949. I apologize for the mistake, Socrat.

  27. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 1:26 PM

    To Themob

    You overstate one fact to avoid all of the evidence
    – all of the other facts. Paterno, MQueary, his father, and Dranov all had a conflict of interest. How? Because all four had a many years acquaintance with Sandusky!

    Be honest now. If the adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, all four would have called 911 immediately without hesitation. Why? Because all four would have thought “kid” first and foremost. In Shower 2001 all thought Sandusky first and foremost!

    Again and again, it was very clear to Paterno, to Schultz, to Dranov, and to the father, that some kind of sexual activity transpired in Shower 2001. By all legal and ethical standards, you never give “the benefit of the doubt” to the alleged molester, you always let a professional policing authority decide the authenticity of the witnessing!

    McQueary’s testimomy in the GJ Presentment, the Preliminary Hearing, and the Sandusky Trial was consistent and the sae each time. And it was he who corrected the Presentment transcript that he never witnessed “insertion!”

  28. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 1:33 PM

    To Socrat

    You made no mistake. It was obvious you were responding to my posting!

  29. themob531 says: Feb 7, 2014 2:26 PM

    @Mike4949
    You are being disingenuous. You can not provide any evidence that Dranov had years of acquaintance with Sandusky. Dranov was a family friend of the McQueary’s and by all accounts had never even met Sandusky. John McQueary may have played under Sandusky but to write that because they were acquainted at one time is the reason they ddn’t report it to local authorities is an assertion. You are simply making stuff up to defend your position. Honestly I believe that any of them were convinced that there was a concrete evidence of wrong doing they would have reported it regardless of Sandusky. You by the way are overlooking the fact that McQueary’s version that he told Dranov is different from the hand written statement he provided investigators when interviewed in 2010 and different from the summary of his grand jury testimony in the 23 page grand jury presentment. In both those he claimed he witnessed the boy being sodomized. My guess is you’re either misinformed or deliberately lying. Which one is it?

  30. normtide says: Feb 7, 2014 2:33 PM

    The questions are. What would you do if someone told you what Joe was told? And, what would you want someone to do if they was told what Joe was told and the child involved was yours? Joe failed on both counts. He did a million things right, but one thing very wrong.

  31. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 5:18 PM

    To Normtide

    Your statement is fair, to the point, and condemn’s JoePa’s behavior, not JoePa!

  32. s0krat3s says: Feb 7, 2014 5:32 PM

    @mike4949 – my post was not directed at any singular post. Moreso it was directed at most people’s lack of information with the other side of this story. The media had a story about the biggest coverup in history, and they beat it dead like a horse. In part because there was a crime that went on, but also because “major coverrup” sells much better than “confusing and complicated situation that we’re not sure about.”
    Now when i say that part about the media keep in mind I’m not defending anything in regards to Penn State. Only that people have to be aware the media has an agenda too.
    There are a lot of details either missing or distorted in the Freeh report, but the media has completely ignored that. You have to ask why.

    The current administration of Penn State was desperate to move past this. They are still trying to run a school, which means they have to keep bringing people in. And let’s face it, while the story is in the news all the time, it makes PSU a less attractive university (for athletics, or otherwise).

    The NCAA knew this. They barely bothered to fact-check the Freeh report, and accepted it as near-gospel. Mark Emmert has made comments in regards to 100% belief in the Freeh report despite not reading through the entire thing himself. It was often suggested at the time that Emmert was in the midst of a major power struggle between both the internal NCAA structure and the colleges it oversees. So inflicting harsh penalties on Penn State helped to solidify his powers (and there have been several articles written about this).

    So the administration of Penn State rushed to accept the NCAA sanctions.

    When in reality, the first alleged incident was reported to police. The second alleged incident produced no victim and a witness who continually denied witnessing anything. NOTHING ELSE happened on Penn State grounds.

    I’ve never been a PSU fan, or a Paterno fanboy, so the legacy of either isn’t what I’m arguing for.
    But I think there is so much information that has been intentionally (or really, really ignorantly) swept under the rug by the media with regards to both what actually happened at Penn State and the contents of the Freeh report.
    And it is really frustrating that people can make comments about how Paterno & others let Sandusky “rape children freely on campus for years” when they couldn’t be further from the truth.
    I understand that a lot of people say such because the only information they’ve been fed is telling them that.
    And that is very disappointing.
    Like all things, there is more than one side to the story, but to this day the media still refuses to acknowledge that.

  33. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 5:49 PM

    To Themob

    McQueary testified in all three court proceedings that he felt Sandusky was sexually molesting he boy. But he made it clear in all three proceedings that he never saw actual insertion. That’s it! Them’s the facts! What’s your complaint?

    Note: It was the GJ Transcript that incorrectly misinterpreted McQueary by stating he witnessed a consummated sexual act. cQueary in future court testimony and through press interviews clarified he never saw the actual rape activity.

    You never answered my question. Had the adult in Shower 2001 been stranger, do you think any of the four would have acted the exact same way as they did when they recognized the adult as Sandusky?

    A person well known and well respected claimed he witnessed an alleged rape! And he told three professional, experienced men his allegation. Why they didn’t call the police is open to speculation. But the fact they didn’t call the police immediately without hesitation is not open to speculation — it’s open to condemnation!

  34. themob531 says: Feb 7, 2014 6:14 PM

    @sokrat3s

    That was well written. You hit the nail on the head and explained why it is futile to debate the decisions that Paterno did or didn’t make with people who are misinformed. By the way, what do you believe is the reasoning for Penn State to settle with Matt Sandusky? Do you believe that Matt saw dollar signs and hopped on the gravy train?

  35. mike4949 says: Feb 7, 2014 6:16 PM

    To Sokrat

    I agree with you that the Freeh Report is flawed and the NCAA was completely and totally wrong to use the report to put sanctions on the football team. And I have never reference this poorly composed document to support any opinion I have given about Shower 2001. And I agree the BOT had no legal nor moral right to cave in on the sanctions.

    Back to Shower 2001. Understand that what victim 2 may have stated eight years later is totally irrelevant as to what McQueary and JoePa should have legally and ethically done in 2001. And what the police did or didn’t do in Shower 1998 is also totally irrelevant to what McQueary and JoePa should have done in 2001. My whole focus has been on the actions of two men over a 24 hour period in 2001. A 24 hour period that stands apart from 1998 and 2009.

    If it was 1701, 1801, or 1901, the same law was in place then as it was in 2001. An alleged crime upon a child was being performed at the exact time of discovery! There is no way anyone can dispute that fact; and there is no way that anyone can dispute the condemnation of folks for not calling the police! Jeez!

    There is only one legal and ethical alternative for a school administrative person with knowledge of this kind to perform. Call a policing authority to immediately investigate the on-going scene of an ON-GOING crime.

    This is exactly what any school official would have done anywhere in the country in 2001. Any school official that is who did not have a personal acquaintance with the alleged pedophile, Jerry Sandusky.

  36. dhardy8207 says: Feb 8, 2014 8:26 AM

    What I find strange is that everyone has tried and convicted JoePa for “not doing enough” to protect the children/child of the incident that he didn’t witness personally and was reported to him some 24 + hours after it happened.

    No one seems to concern themselves including the courts with the grad assistant coach that did witness the incident and instead of calling the police on the spot, went home and discussed with his father before reporting to JoePa almost 2 days later. Why is he not facing charges? He was the one that supposedly witnessed this horrific act and was able to leave the facility without intervening to protect that child, without alerting campus police or city authorities. Why should a 26 year old MAN have to go home and discuss with his father before determining a “crime” had been committed? He by all reports has been completely held unaccountable for not reporting the incident while it took place…

  37. mike4949 says: Feb 8, 2014 10:23 AM

    To DHArdy8207

    Great posting!

    I completely agree with you that the redhead was a complete “numb nut” for not calling 911. But he hesitated! The same way his father, the incompetent Dr. Dranov, and Paterno hesitated. And it’s incredulous not one of those three professional, experienced men could come up with the simple logic you have employed in your posting. Not one of the three thought of directing McQueary to call 911! “Why” of course is open to speculation. Now if that adult in Shower 2001 had been a stranger, there is no doubt in my mind 911 would have been the first thing thought of by all four!

    But curiously Paterno insisted in taking over from McQueary the responsibility for reporting the alleged sexual molestation. Curiously he never simply told Mike to call the police. And curiously, while the victim was allegedly being abused, he waited 24 hours before contacting an “ATHLETIC DIRECTOR!”

    So Hardy, you are absolutely right in condemning McQueary’s strange behavior. But no less strange was Paterno forgetting all about the victim and forgetting all about the police. But he obviously never forgot all about Sandusky.

    Thank you for your insight here. I, like you, have admired Joepa lo these many years. But I, like you, condemn the one unethical behavior he and McQueary displayed in 2001

  38. dhardy8207 says: Feb 8, 2014 12:01 PM

    @mike4949:

    From what I’ve read in the reports that was published is that JoePa did report the incident to the Administrators once he was notified. Should he have called the police? Much speculation about that, and hindsite he should have. However, what I wonder is this; did he hesitate because of some wavering in what McQueary relayed to him? According to what I’ve read of the report it was some 30 + hours after McQueary witnessed the incident before JoePa was notified. I’m not so certain he was protecting Sandusky as much as the program.

    None of us were present to know what exactly was said between the two as by some accounts McQueary couldn’t say for certain if a rape actually occurred, and by saying that JoePa could have found himself liable had he reported something based off hearsay or second hand information, therefore putting him in a position to report it to the administration in order for a decision to be made on how to best handle the situation. Where the problem comes in is that nothing apparently got handled or reported to any law enforcement entities. In the aftermath a university, a legendary coach and all involved can be judged as making critical errors in judgement.

    I give JoePa benefit of doubt because this man had an absolutely impeccable record as a coach and as a member of the community until this all blew up. I can’t however give McQueary benefit of doubt in how he handled things. Look, I’m a female and if I happened up on some grown ass man raping a child or even in an inappropriate situation with a child, I’m not walking away without that child being removed from that situation. If it means I have to put myself in harms way so be it, I as an adult would have taken what ever steps necessary. How does a grown man walk away from what he reported almost 36 hours later as a sexual assault on a child, recant the details to family members, and then lay down and sleep? Why did he wait and let the responsibility fall to someone else? He should have immediately intervened to protect that child, went to the nearest phone and called the police and while he was waiting beat the hell out of Sandusky!

  39. skywatcherj says: Feb 8, 2014 5:25 PM

    “I’m not so certain he was protecting Sandusky as much as the program.” Actually, evidence suggests he was protecting neither.

    By 2001, Sandusky was in Paterno’s view, a long-since retired former nuisance to the program. Paterno had seen Sandusky as an ineffective coach since the mid-1990′s, before any of this happened. His attempt to keep Sandusky out of the football building with minors from his charity had been short-circuited by the PSU VP in 1999, when Sandusky retired. Paterno was not told anything about 2001 until a day later, and what he was told was even more vague than what Dr. Dranov had been told. He was neither an administrator nor a witness, and was not authorized as an administrator to start an investigation. He did, within 24 hrs., contact 2 administrators who were so authorized, one of them overseer of campus police. He trusted them to do a proper investigation from there, with police communication as appropriate.

    No one in the football program had motive to protect Sandusky. In 2001, he was long-gone from their work and reputation.

    To find motive for protecting Sandusky, one must follow the money-power web surrounding Sandusky’s charity. Making this a football scandal was a contrivance that distracted the public from Sandusky’s real protectors. That is why the inquiry must continue.

  40. mike4949 says: Feb 8, 2014 11:55 PM

    To DHardy

    Thank you for your response. But you are using rationalization and obfuscation to defend JoePa’s indefensible misbehavior in 2001. How? Here’s how!

    If there is the slightest “suspicion” a child is in harm’s way, and you learn about this second hand, third hand, fourth hand ad infinitum, you make no assumptions nor evaluations. But you very definitely call the professional policing authorities immediately and without hesitation and let them make all the assumptions and all the evaluations. When a suspicion arises about an abusive event, if one errs, one always errs on the side of safety — a child’s safety.

    Here are the facts! When Paterno accepted the responsibility to report the incident, all he needed to do was call 911 immediately and without hesitation. As regards to JoePa just being a non-witness getting information second hand from a first hand party, Paterno the football coach, along with the plumber, the secretary, the engineer, the paperboy, the salesperson, the window washer, the construction worker, the auto mechanic, the doctor, the teacher, the administrator, the janitor, the street cleaner, the architect, the nurse, the mother, the father, all share one thing in common. All are human beings. And as human beings all share the same ethical instinct, the same moral inclination. When a child is in danger, they instinctively, without hesitation, come to its aid. Paterno only thought of Sandusky. Only wanted to come to his aid. Paterno forgot all about the kid; he made him invisible. For shame!

    An educational aside regarding hearsay: Many and most crimes are reported to police every day by second, third, fourth parties and non witnesses. Police hear the hearsay and judge whether an investigation is warranted. These are how many crimes are discovered and solved — by honest citizens acting as honest informers. The police investigate and make judgment as to the viability of a crime actually having occurred. No one is ever sued for reporting what they think or observe might be a crime. It’s their civic duty.

    When you think about it, without hearsay, most crimes in this country would go unreported and uninterrupted!

  41. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 12:01 AM

    To DHardy

    Paterno was told about the alleged sexual assault 12 hours after it was witnessed — not 30 hours!

    JoePa did however wait an excruciating 24 hours before he told anyone anything! As you correctly pointed out DHardy, McQueary was remiss in not calling 911. And by the same token, so was JoePa!

  42. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 12:10 AM

    To Skywatcher

    You understate to a fault. According to testimony in three court proceedings, it was very clear to Dranov, McQueary’s father, Schultz, and Paterno that something sexually untoward had happened to that child. And it was incumbent legally and ethically upon all four to get the police to rescue a child who was being abused that night, the next day, and beyond! For the abuse never stops until adult is separated from victim!

    Which is exactly what all four would have done if the adult was a stranger; or if the child was one of JoePa’s grandsons!

  43. dhardy8207 says: Feb 9, 2014 9:57 AM

    Mike4949 says;

    “Thank you for your response. But you are using rationalization and obfuscation to defend JoePa’s indefensible misbehavior in 2001. How? Here’s how!”

    ———————————————————

    With all due respect, rationalization is what makes the law work. Everything is not as cut and dry as the media reports it. You’ve already admitted in previous post that the Freech report was flawed. Failure to rationalize every aspect of a crime is what leads to many people being imprisoned and possibly put to death for crimes they didn’t commit.

    What I find strange now in your last post is that you have induced into a public forum Paterno’s guilt without being there to 1)witness what was said. 2) know exactly what he passed on and to whom. You, just like the rest of us had to READ a report or documentation of what was supposedly said and formed your own opinion. Have you actually viewed “court documents”? If not then you have nothing to base your opinion on but what the MEDIA has published, and we find everyday that sensationalism rules the bias of the media. Its unfortunate but someone of high profile downfall sales better than a average joe saving someone from a burning building article.

    In the earlier incident in the late 1990′s, the police investigated ACCUSATIONS and found no merit to charge Sandusky. Should he have been allowed to continue to work with children in a charity after the original incident? I would say not, but the laws couldn’t restrict his rights to do so because the accusations were not proven. Where is your outrage on that? I see nothing in your post about the many boys that he was allowed access to through a charitable organization that was geared to bring these boys into contact with him. By the same accounts, some of the parents of these children had no idea that he had even been previously accused of questionable behavior. Now are you going to broaden your stance and say that the city law enforcement covered for him too?

    Freech said in his report that Paterno reported the incident he was told about hours after the fact to administrators of the university. He took that route because 1) it was hours after the incident 2) he wasn’t an actual witness to the incident 3) McQueary wasn’t clear on exaclty what he saw. Those are the things that I read and heard through different MEDIA outlets, and predominantly Freech’s press conference. Freech said that “Paterno should have gone further and that he admitted such once all the details started coming together”. But should he bare the brunt of all guilt in this case, NO (and thats just my opinion). His legacy, scarred beyond repair, his career ended with accolates being stripped from the record books, he went to his grave shamed and I can’t think he would have risk his reputation, respect from the community as well as the college football world to protect Sandusky. If Sandusky’s actions were so blatantly visible how is it that you can hold just one man accountable to see and know all. There were many coaches, players, trainers, and other staff that should have seen the signs right? His own wife by your logic should have reported him to the police as the same “testimony” you are referring to documents that Sandusky entertained children in his home.

    However should the young man who actually witnessed this incident and then walked away face some type of “endangering a child” charges, most certainly. Your point you state here; “And it was incumbent legally and ethically upon all four to get the police to rescue a child who was being abused that night, the next day, and beyond!” The time to rescue the child would have been when McQueary saw whatever he thought was inappropriate behavior which later became the rape of a child. By the time Paterno was notified the child was not on campus, nor was Sandusky.

    My original point is, when you witness something your moral obligation becomes imminent because you hold the certainty of what you know happen. But when someone comes to you and says “they think or they possibly witnessed the act” your position of reporting a possible crime loses credibility.

  44. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 9, 2014 10:20 AM

    Here’s a hypothetical,

    The NCAA agrees to rescind the prior agreement with Penn State, re-instate Penn State football scholarships and JoePa’s record.

    Penn State rejoices!

    In doing so, the NCAA expels Penn State from the NCAA since the NCAA is a “voluntary” organization on both parties involved and Penn State did not want to abide by the duly established guidelines and procedures of the fellow member institutions that Penn State agreed to as a member of the NCAA. The NCAA would then emancipate ALL student Athletes with Penn State for immediate transfer without penalty to another NCAA member institution. The NCAA goes further and asks for a Federal investigation into the prospect of Cleary Act violations.

    The NCAA then informs member institutions that playing Penn State in any athletic contest will not count in any NCAA standings and that Penn State will not be receiving any NCAA conference funds nor “trails” as a result from said expulsion.

    The NCAA also sends a letter to the NAIA and states that any consideration for Penn State admission will result in the NCAA review of NAIA members playing Division III NCAA members.

    Penn State would be begging to be readmitted back into the NCAA.

    Good deal or Bad Deal, Penn State University officials agreed to the sanctions in part that the University did not want an NCAA investigation into their ENTIRE athletic program. The University did not know how bad the actual situation was and did not want a limitless fishing expedition on an unlimited scale and an unlimited scope.

    The NCAA investigation would be small potatoes should the Feds take an interest in investigating for Cleary Act violations. That would involve “freezing” federal grant money for research and financial aid for students until a federal investigation is completed. That could take years. Time was not an ally to Penn State.

    Why do you think George Mitchell was retained as compliance liaison between Penn State and the NCAA? It was to protect Penn State, period.

    Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno knew the monster they had in their midst for over a decade and failed the Penn State community miserably.

    Before you judge me as anti Penn State, a side note,

    I paid a enormous price family wise when I reported a sexual assault on a minor female family member by an uncle two decades ago. It was ugly, tragic and did not end well for the offending party, his immediate family and other relatives. Would I do it again? In a New York minute. I didn’t wait to talk with his wife, or his mother and father

    A six year girl was able to get her life back.

    Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz had the same opportunity and failed the simple test of “What IF it was YOUR kid in the shower room with Sandusky?”
    We all know the answer to that question.

    RTR.

  45. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 10:22 AM

    Joe knew
    Joe turned his back on it
    Joe covered it up
    Joe enabled other children to be raped and molested.

    In the end, Joe got exactly what he deserved!!!

  46. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 10:39 AM

    You’re a troll, dkhhuey. Kick rocks you piece of shit.

  47. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 11:21 AM

    Not even remotely a troll – just calling out the truth in this horrid affair. You can stick you head in the PSU sand all you want – the vast majority of people outside of Happy Valley can see quite plainly what went on there

  48. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 9, 2014 11:43 AM

    “In hindsight,” Paterno told the Washington Post in an interview published Saturday, “I wish I had done more.”

    A dying declaration.

    Paterno said he was “afraid” to jeopardize university procedure after assistant coach Mike McQueary knocked on his door on a Saturday morning, sat at his kitchen table and described what he had seen.

    McQueary left out graphic details, Paterno said. But the legendary Nittany Lions coach wasn’t sure he would have been able to comprehend the details anyway. And he was unsure of how to handle the information he had.

    “So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did,” Paterno said. “It didn’t work out that way.”

    Paterno aided and abetted a monster to protect his precious football program.

    He said he would be “sick about” the abuse, if Sandusky is found guilty of the charges, and waited so long to finally talk about the case because he “wanted everybody to settle down.”

    Sounds like a major CYA.

  49. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 11:46 AM

    Poking in here on occasion and reposting the same ignorant one sentence soundbites doesn’t represent a person who is interested in a logical discussion about the facts but matter of factly a person who is a self-righteous asswipe simply more interested in provoking the oppositions emotions i.e. a troll. I however will allow you to prove me wrong by specifically answering these questions. What did Joe know that a whole bunch of others didn’t? What did Joe turn his back on? What did Joe cover up? How did Joe enable other children to be raped? A vast majority of people outside of Happy Vally are media lemmings who believe what that were intially told but are too stubborn to be impartial when it comes to the facts. The cover up comment you posted by itself exemplifies how obviously you are one of those people.

  50. bigd88 says: Feb 9, 2014 12:50 PM

    amosalanzostagg says:
    Feb 9, 2014 10:20 AM
    Here’s a hypothetical,

    The NCAA agrees to rescind the prior agreement with Penn State, re-instate Penn State football scholarships and JoePa’s record.

    Penn State rejoices!

    In doing so, the NCAA expels Penn State from the NCAA since the NCAA is a “voluntary” organization on both parties involved and Penn State did not want to abide by the duly established guidelines and procedures of the fellow member institutions that Penn State agreed to as a member of the NCAA. The NCAA would then emancipate ALL student Athletes with Penn State for immediate transfer without penalty to another NCAA member institution. The NCAA goes further and asks for a Federal investigation into the prospect of Cleary Act violations.

    The NCAA then informs member institutions that playing Penn State in any athletic contest will not count in any NCAA standings and that Penn State will not be receiving any NCAA conference funds nor “trails” as a result from said expulsion.

    The NCAA also sends a letter to the NAIA and states that any consideration for Penn State admission will result in the NCAA review of NAIA members playing Division III NCAA members.

    Penn State would be begging to be readmitted back into the NCAA.

    Good deal or Bad Deal, Penn State University officials agreed to the sanctions in part that the University did not want an NCAA investigation into their ENTIRE athletic program. The University did not know how bad the actual situation was and did not want a limitless fishing expedition on an unlimited scale and an unlimited scope.

    The NCAA investigation would be small potatoes should the Feds take an interest in investigating for Cleary Act violations. That would involve “freezing” federal grant money for research and financial aid for students until a federal investigation is completed. That could take years. Time was not an ally to Penn State.

    Why do you think George Mitchell was retained as compliance liaison between Penn State and the NCAA? It was to protect Penn State, period.

    Curley, Schultz, Spanier and Paterno knew the monster they had in their midst for over a decade and failed the Penn State community miserably.

    ———————————————————-

    Mr stagg,

    What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  51. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 9, 2014 12:58 PM

    Mob531,

    Is it logical for a person to sit on knowledge and not tell the appropriate LEGAL authorities of child endangerment? Is it logical to justify your position by saying “I reported it to my boss!” That defense died at Nuremberg back in the 1940′s.

    JoePa had the power and position while at Penn State. All it would have done is taken ONE telephone call to officials OUTSIDE the University power structure. HE failed to do so.

    JoePa conveys that he himself knew by stating
    “In hindsight, I wish he had done more.” Assuage a guilty conscience perhaps?

    JoePa, “afraid”? no, more like protecting an image
    crafted over a lifetime of giving.

  52. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 1:01 PM

    I’m not going to post a book like post that you PSU apologist vomit out on every board. I read all of the reports, court testimony, and every other piece of work that was done on the subject so enough of your pseudo lawyer/investigator arrogant attitude. The bottom line, Joe Paterno knew children were being molested by Sandusky and he did NOTHING other than the bare minimum effort, then erased it from his mind, gave McCreary a job to shut him up, and enabled Sandusky to continue to anally rape and molest children. His legacy deserves to be destroyed because he put in the minimal effort required so the PSU brand would not be impacted by such a scandal.

  53. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 1:52 PM

    @dkhhuey
    Like I wrote before, you’re a troll. You don’t bother to debate and/or answer my questions because you’re full of shit and know you would be exposed for being a self-righteous prick. The DA even came out and said there was no evidence that Paterno covered anything up but you simply asserting it makes it a fact and you somehow an expert on what happened. You are scum and everything you wrote is complete and total bullshit. You can continue posting your one sentence soundbites if it makes you feel empowered but the reason that is all you offer speaks for itself.

  54. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 3:18 PM

    If any player would have put in the same pathetic minimum required effort Paterno did they would have been kicked off the team. Paterno failed miserably in his duty and enabled Sandusky to rape and molest more children. His statue was ripped down and his record forever damaged because of turning a blind eye and I couldn’t be happier!

  55. amosalanzostagg says: Feb 9, 2014 3:19 PM

    bigdd,

    Condolences for your ignorance. I can’t help if you’re stuck on stupid. Read the first sentence.”Hypothetical”.

    The NCAA is a voluntary association of Universities and Colleges. If you had a modicum of grey matter, you would have remembered one of the main reasons that Penn State accepted the sanctions was the reality that the Penn State ATHLETIC program faced the “death penalty”, not football, the entire athletic program. Penn State BoT faced decisions that if the University Administrators(Curley,Spainer,Schultz AND Paterno) had just done their MINIMUM job requirements, much less BASIC laws of human nature and compassion to protect the innocents,then none of this crap would have happened.

    Oh, yes the NCAA does have the framework to EXPEL member institutions along with the necessary financial and legal enforcement guidelines and procedures. It’s part of every approved school and conference application for NCAA Division I, II and III participation.

    Why not ask for a refund on your college diploma?

    My personal relationship with God is great, I didn’t harbor and protect a child molester like Penn State did…..

  56. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 3:22 PM

    The best thing about it – Paterno was alive when his reputation and legacy was shredded and stomped on! He went to his grave with the knowledge that his disgraceful actions, or lack there of, would forever hang around his precious legacy like a 100 ton anchor! It couldn’t have happened to a more miserable POS

  57. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 3:33 PM

    To DHardy

    Thanks again for your well thought out and very sincere response. I value your opinion.

    Yes, I do believe the Freeh Report flawed and useless for its very design and compilation is both flawed and juvenile. But yes, I have read (combed over) every word of the GJ Presentment, the two Preliminary Hearings, the Sandusky Trial, and all interviews and books relating to Shower 2001! No, you and I were not witnesses. But that fact does not preclude us from judging others whom we never met nor lived in our time like Hitler, Christ, the Buddha, Stalin etc. And that fact does not preclude us from judging other’s witnessing. Alas, we are all judged by our actions of the past – regardless whether that judging is done by witnesses God, friends, relatives, ourselves; or by strangers, the IRS, or non-witnesses. Non witnesses who are privy to the facts, to the evidence (both circumstantial and direct) that make up our lives.

    I let the facts speak to me. I honor evidence that is self-evident. And remember, I may be a tad biased for I have admired JoePa for over fifty years! Yes, I’m that old. LoL! And part of me wants to restore his legacy to its former glory. But that can only possibly be done by holding him accountable for his great misbehavior of walking away from an alleged adolescent rape at the precise time it was allegedly transpiring; and for walking away the next eight years after the event! DHardy, can you imagine what you would think of me and I of you had either of us performed such a purposeful and instinctually unethical action. You would have kicked Sandusky’s ass! Me too with an immediate call to the 911 police!

    You: “In the earlier incident in the late 1990′s, the police investigated ACCUSATIONS and found no merit to charge Sandusky. Should he have been allowed to continue to work with children in a charity after the original incident? I would say not, but the laws couldn’t restrict his rights to do so because the accusations were not proven. Where is your outrage on that?”

    My outrage is of the behavior of a group of highly educated, experienced men not coming immediately and without hesitation to the aid of a child allegedly being sexually molested in real time! I will let Shower 1998 be your cause of outrage for Shower 2001 was completely and totally a separate event! Now DHArdy, you can find blame on any one of the names you mentioned. But my whole energy is focused on a 24 hour period in which four men who knew what was the right thing to do – but didn’t do the right thing. And it’s my whole focus that remains that upon that particular event. Why? Because there is a significant number of people out there who still maintain JoePa and three others did the right thing. And to maintain that kind of flawed logic puts every future, potential child victim instantaneously in harm’s way! Think kid! And when you think not of JoePa or McQueary but only of the victim child, you realize what McQueary and JoePa did NOT do was unconscionable!

    Sigh, you: “The time to rescue the child would have been when McQueary saw whatever he thought was inappropriate behavior which later became the rape of a child. By the time Paterno was notified the child was not on campus, nor was Sandusky. My original point is, when you witness something your moral obligation becomes imminent because you hold the certainty of what you know happen.”

    No, no, and no! First, you have no idea when Paterno was notified if Sandusky left the gym. And yes, he was being told first hand by the direct, on site witness of the alleged crime. So when Paterno accepted the responsibility for reporting the direct, on site witnessing, he was legally and ethically obligated to call 911. (And leave all speculation, all doubt, all confusion, and all possible misunderstanding of McQueary’s words, to the police – not an athletic director)!

    And yes, you can very correctly assume that the psychological and physical molestation was on-going through that night, the next day, and beyond. Why? Because it’s the same as a kidnapped child, for that kid is considered by the authorities kidnapped (imprisoned) 24/7 up until he or she is discovered.

    You: “But when someone comes to you and says “they think or they possibly witnessed the act” your position of reporting a possible crime loses credibility.”

    Yours is a flawed and childish rationalization here. Who cares if reporting such a crime loses “credibility”!? It’s not up to you to determine credibility! It’s up to a professional, policing authority to ascertain credibility! Jeez!

    DHardy, start thinking kid and only kid. That will be your intellectual salvation re this whole sordid affair!

    Namaste

  58. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 4:28 PM

    @dkhhuey
    That is why his family is bringing this lawsuit because Paterno became a victim as well. It’s preposterous to believe that 75-year-old man had any incentive to cover for Sandusky given he wasn’t even employed at Penn State and that somehow exposing a pedophile would hurt the program. You keep trying label Paterno has some monster as if he committed the crimes himself. It’s also silly to suggest that what Paterno failed to do was something sinister even though Mike McQueary wasn’t even able to convince his own father and a prominent family friend that something actually happened. You also keep suggesting a cover up when their isn’t any evidence of one ( the DA even said their wasn’t )not to mention that if Paterno was actually trying to cover it up, why would he even tell another person let alone his boss; the very person who can fire him? Why did nobody try to shut McQueary up if they were trying to conceal it? Your logic doesn’t make any sense. You only make assertions hoping they stick. What is apparent to me is that you’re some righteous Christian nut wack who seems to believe he has the monoply on morality. I’m not surprised by your pompous attitude for I find it a common practice among religious retards who pretend they’re better than others merely because they have convinced themselves that their imaginary friend has made them a saint. You are no better than Paterno you simply try to portray like you are.

  59. dhardy8207 says: Feb 9, 2014 4:37 PM

    mike4949…

    I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m not a PSU fan only can say that I am a college football fan. I’ve been watching JoePa since back in the days of Bear Bryant as I’m a BAMA fan…and yes I’m that old. ;-)

    I have thought of the kid, and I never dismissed JoePa of any liability in this. But I do know a little something about the laws of my state. I m aware that every state varies and I’ll say this one more time with the hope that you get the gist of my original comment. Had JoePa called the police instead of the University administrators, he would have been armed with minimal details, he would have only been able to pass on what he was told by the “eye witness” of the incident. Now he went on record before he died saying “hindsite, I now see that I probably should have handled this differently”. I posted that in my original response back to you. In that he admitted that allowing the University’s administration, the university’s legal department, and board of trustees to handle the investigation, and therefore further reporting of this to the proper authorities was an error in judgement.

    My original comment posted was directed at why everyone wants this man to still be vilinized despite he’s dead but yet no one has any disdain for McQueary. Everyone wanted JoePa’s record destroyed and him reduced to an accomplice of a pedophile yet no one has uttered a word about the man who actually saw this child being abused and walked away. Just scan back up through the comments and count how many are derogatory of a man that many of his former players over 60 years of coaching describe him as nothing but a man of outstanding and impeccable character. Are you telling me that all his former assistants, other college coaches, his peers, his former players missed this “obvious character flaw. ”

    Sigh…. should he have taken more action at the time, he himself admitted yes he should have, but some of the comments act as if he stood at the door as a look out for Sandusky. McQueary on the other hand has NEVER had to answer for WHY and HOW he walked away that day without ripping Sandusky away from that child and STOPPING this horrific act while is was occuring. An act so offensive that he had to consult family and debate for hours on how he should report it. Thinking of the KID that to me is criminal, yet it was just too easy to make JoePa the complete scapegoat for every atrocity that Sandusky committed.

  60. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 5:33 PM

    To Themob

    I am, like I suspect of yourself, a lifelong admirer (fifty years!) of JoePa’s amazing contributions to college football specifically and PSU generally! And I empathize with the astute questions you have brought forth upon this forum.

    Some say there’s no evidence for a cover-up re Shower 2001. But if you employ an objective, non-biased eye, the evidence is actually overwhelming!

    Here are the facts you seek that spell out COVER-UP! A cover-up that was both collectively and individually created!

    After he purposefully and eagerly took over the responsibility from McQueary to report the alleged crime, JoePa waited an amazing 24 hours before finally contacting, not the police or CPS, but an athletic director!

    The athletic director went to his boss, an executive of the PSU’s Finance and Business, and they both waited an incredible “TEN DAYS” before approaching the witness of the crime. And they spent a total of ten minutes with McQueary, never to see nor talk with him about the crime ever again!

    Now ralize this: The three most important authorities, the police, CPA, and the DA, the only three authorities who legally and ethically had to be contacted, were totally unaware of Shower 2001 for THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

    The unknown victim was made invisible, abandoned, disregarded by Curley, Spanier, and Schultz for the NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

    Paterno and McQueary made invisible, completely abandoned, totally disregarded the unknown victim for the NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

    Neither JoePa nor McQueary ever sought out the condition of the victim – neither ever sought out his identity – for the NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

    So the idea of forgetting about Shower 2001, making the event inconsequential, considering it irrelevant and unimportant, and therefore not an issue any authority needed to be involved, lasted and sustained itself for THE NEXT EIGHT YEARS!

    The reason JoePa’s great misbehavior has to be revealed and he be held accountable for his disastrous non-involvement of contacting a policing authority, immediately without hesitation, is because tragically there are well meaning but confused folks out there who maintain Joe did the right thing! And this blind defense of behavior indefensible does a total disservice to all potential victims of pedophiles in the future.

    Themo, had that adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, the police would have been called and you and I would not be dialoging today. Calling 911 would have been the first option. And at the very least, McQueary’s father who was well versed in medical procedure along with Dr. Dranov would both have had the redhead dial 911 immediately without hesitation! But Themob, it’s as obvious as the capitol T in your name, the thought of bringing a police action upon the most famous and most well respected icon in Pennsylvania (other than JoePa), made all three hesitate, waver, pause. Made all three go against instinct. They all feared the possible distasteful consequences to PSU, JoePa , and the football program.

    And by golly dontcha know, they were all correct in this conviction.

  61. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 5:51 PM

    ToDHardy

    Thanks for your post.

    I have never condemned JoePa! I have never villainized him! And anyone who is going to blame JoePa for everyone of Sandusky’s crimes is just plain wrong. I condemn his one time misbehavior. A condemnation everyone must understand in order for this society to be 100 % aligned against Pedophilia!

    McQueary’s going to get that disgusting “pass” you mentioned because of the six other experienced, professionals who took part in this whole debacle. But rest assured, he has been condemned, convicted, and given a life term of ostrasization by the ever present Court of Public Opinion!

  62. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 6:12 PM

    @Mike4949

    That is simply where you are confused. There wasn’t a cover up because no one was convinced based on McQueary’s staement that there indeed had been a victim. You are overlooking that McQueary’s father and his friend who had no motive to protect Sandusky couldn’t be convinced of a crime to where they felt it was absolutely imperative to call the police. Furthermore, there wasn’t another incident that happened on Penn State grounds and no one tried to keep anybody quiet.

  63. dkhhuey says: Feb 9, 2014 6:55 PM

    @Mike – you also forgot that Joe told McCreary that he didn’t have a job for him upon initial contact… that next year after it was all swept neatly under the carpet – BINGO, he now has a nice paying job!

    @mob – your attempts to stereotype me based on my opinion of Paterno is hilariously wrong and couldn’t be farther from reality! Thanks for the laugh!!!

  64. mike4949 says: Feb 9, 2014 6:58 PM

    To Themob

    But that’s my whole point. Did ten men get together in a room and plot out a cover-up. No! But each individually consciously avoided any contact with any policing authority or agency that would have investigated immediately the alleged charge. So no one didn’t have to keep anyone else quiet.

    Again and again, if the adult had been a stranger, do you think a delay of eight years would have transpired? Of course not! This event would have been reported by McQueary to the police that evening.

    The key here is that the alleged pedophile was Sandusky. And no one had the guts to turn him in. That was wrong on all accounts! And that was unconscionable for all involved.

  65. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 9:32 PM

    @Mike4949
    Fine! You win. You wore me down and won by attrition. I’m confident that Paterno believed he was doing the right thing and unfortunately it backfired. People want to see the man destroyed over one untentional error in judgement. Of all the people that were involved especially McQueary who was a grown ass man, Paterno suffers the biggest loss when it’s apparent that he was the one who made the strongest attempt to have something done about it. Vilify him, it doesn’t matter.

  66. themob531 says: Feb 9, 2014 9:47 PM

    @dkhhuey
    My religious rant was initially meant for someone else but after reading it was obviously stupid and I just failed to delete it before I posted. I admit I don’t have the slightest idea of who you are but you just came across as unforgiving and vindictive even though Paterno; based on his own confessions truly believed he was doing the correct thing.

  67. mike4949 says: Feb 10, 2014 2:40 AM

    To Themob

    I won’t let anyone “vilify” JoePa. But I will continue to vilify the horrendous lack of judgment he displayed in 2001. A lack of judgment horrendous because it contributed to one of the biggest college scandals in NCAA history!

    Once everyone understands, admits, accepts that the misbehavior of folks in Shower 2001 is totally unacceptable, then Paterno will finally be able to rest in peace.

  68. dkhhuey says: Feb 10, 2014 9:17 AM

    @mob – you’ve now made it impossible for me to argue with you after that last statement… yeesh! It is a very divisive topic that really has little to no ground!

    As for my religious affiliation – I am a Pastafarian from The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! That is why I laughed when you posted that!

  69. sprtmano says: Feb 10, 2014 10:25 AM

    All of the state of Pennsylvania must be burdened by this crime for the the rest of time. Just as the germans are and always will be. That state did nothing to help the innocent. They still murder babies with that horrible abortion up there. They could learn a lot from the SEC! Our coaches don’t molest little boys. PSU is disgusting, and despicable. All the people who attend that university support the molestation that continues to this day in the hearts, and souls of those children, whose crime was perpetrated upon them by the evil Joe Paterno and all the PSU staff and students.

  70. mike4949 says: Feb 10, 2014 12:29 PM

    To Themob

    Wow! You called it.! You’re right about how some unfortunates out there overreact, to a pathetic fault, regarding our JoePa and PSU.

    Sprtmano is a classic example of a person who simply doesn’t grasp the situation of Shower 2001 and reacts emotionally unenlightened and intellectually ignorant.

    His condemnation is juvenile and childish. But his post reveals something else more disquieting and disturbingly more obvious. To elicit the kind of irrational comments he submitted about Paterno and PSU it takes a person distressed and dismayed about his own self and about his own status in the eyes of others.

    For me, his words expose in part his life-long struggle with family and specifically the rejection he has felt from his parents all his existence. All this, along with his fear of rebuff and denunciation from his co-workers in the workplace that has occurred all his working years.

    This is an individual who is awash in anger and expresses it by going after anyone whom he feels is vulnerable to attack. But it must be remembered that behind all anger (whether justified or not) is fear! And Sprtmano is a guy inundated with fear — fear of what he feels he has become in the eyes of his acquaintances and his own eyes! And his irrational emotional demeanor is ultimately defined by the classic social axiom:

    “People who put others down, do so because they feel put down about themselves.”

  71. skywatcherj says: Feb 11, 2014 10:19 AM

    @mike4949, Feb. 9, 12:10 a.m.
    “You understate to a fault.” Really?!

    2 important things have been understated in all this. 1) the decades-long animosity between Paterno and Sandusky that negates any motive to protect him, for program’s sake or anything else; and 2) the incentive many wealthy, powerful people associated with the Second Mile DID have to protect Sandusky–people with the leverage to check out or ignore the warning signals THEY had about him well before Nov. 2011, and to distract the public with an enticing story about a “powerful” coach “gone bad”.

    No one questioned McQuery more thoroughly than Dr. Dranov, a mandated reporter with no investment in Sandusky, and within a couple hours of the incident. He concluded this was not substantial enough to report. Your condemnation notwithstanding, this madanted reporter should be long-since arrested by now, if he lacked integrity.

    Actually overstated to a fault are 1) McQuery’s consistency of witness, and 2) Paterno’s power to change the outcome. McQuery’s claim to have witnessed anal intercourse was refuted on so many fronts that no one could make the charge stick. The rest of his claims are disputed by others, including Curley, Schultz, and Victim 2 himself, in a letter to the local press. That’s why the courts are having trials about it–to find the truth.

    Paterno, by McQuery’s own tetstimony, had less information than any of the other players. He was approached the day after the episode was over; and the trial did not indicate any subsequent episodes with Victim 2 (or anyone else on campus, as far as one can tell).
    Prosecutor Fina said that Paterno did more than any of the other players to get this behavior–whatever he believed it was–investigated. He chose Schultz, overseer of campus police, to get it right. No one knows whether the 911 staff would have accomplished more; they didn’t in 1998. This hardly constitutes moral failure on Paterno’s part.

    In overview, it is worth noting that most of Sandusky’s activities happened off campus. Of the 2 that clearly did, 1998 was thoroughly investigated and came to a no-wrongdoing outcome,and 2001 was investigated by 2 administrators, one in enforcement, who will explain their actions in court.

    The uncertainties about these and other issues are why the courts are green-lighting the case to go forward. Surely everyone on both sides will bring out all the facts they can; may the ultimate truth prevail! That is why we have courts.

    In the meantime, Mike, your opinions are relevant and may turn out correct; but your persistent condescension toward a variety of people who don’t reach your conclusions is unwarranted. There are 2 sides to this, and both deserve their say in court.

  72. mike4949 says: Feb 11, 2014 12:18 PM

    To Skywatcher

    Thank you for your well-crafted rebuttal. I value your opinion.

    You are asking that we wait for the courts to deal with Spanier, Schultz, and Curley. Fine, but my reactions and positions are the result of court proceedings already enacted, already determined, already of record.

    Alas, you have made some assumptions that I now find are examples of “overstatement!” Smile. In Shower 2001 yes, we can only speculate what was going through the minds of Schultz, Paterno, McQueary, his father, and the incompetent Dr. Dranov. But despite your carefully worded response, it is a legal fact all four men admitted in three court proceedings that from Mike McQueary, they were convinced that “something sexually untoward” transpired in that shower room. And that’s no speculation.

    You: “No one questioned McQuery more thoroughly than Dr. Dranov, a mandated reporter with no investment in Sandusky, and within a couple hours of the incident. He concluded this was not substantial enough to report.”

    Not true. He did conclude that a report should be made — to Paterno. But the man was incompetent because he admitted that he found the redhead almost incoherent as he was too excited, nervous, and shook up to be asked any probing and effective questions. Dranov backed off! Unconsionable!

    But although the justification both legally and ethically for calling 911 should have been a reality, it never happened. A justification that should have been beyond debate, discussion, or speculation. Why? Here’s why.

    Now I know Skywatcher, that you will agree with me had the adult in Shower 2001 been a stranger, you and I would not be communicating today! Yes, 911 would have been called because all five would have had one thing in mind and in common, the protection and salvation of the alleged victim child! I think that’s an appropriate non biased speculation. Don’t you agree? Make sense? Is that a logical hypothetical conclusion? Gut level, that’s your “other side” of the story. But here’s the side we know so well as the evidence both circumstantial and direct reveals:

    The reason the 911 call was never made (nor even considered) had to be because all five men knew personally and socially the alleged child molester. And that’s the same reason all five instantaneously forgot, made invisible the child victim. Agreed? Why? Because their whole concern was directed entirely not towards the kid but towards Sandusky. Any argument with this? And all actions, energy, and conversation was used to determine how to deal with this revelation that the adult was Jerry. Any disagreement? And for all five to produce this kind of conduct, the kid was instantaneously trivialized (no question about it because no 911 call was made)!

    Skywalker, call it “fondling,” “touching,” “caressing,” or “horseplay,” a naked male adult with a naked minor in a closed private gymnasium at a major university on a Friday night constitutes reasonable doubt, a legalized suspicion as to the appropriateness of that adult’s behavior. A 911 call is mandated here legally and ethically — immediately without hesitation. Period! You always let the policing experts take over and investigate the legality or illegality of a scene of alleged rape! Period!

    An aside: Gary Schultz official title was Senior Vic President of Finance and Business. And like the many school departments whose financials he oversaw, his responsibility for the Police Department was the same — as a financial overseer. His main job was to issue payroll checks to the police department staff.

    It is a matter of record that no one connected with the Penn State police department’s day to day operation i.e. the police chief, the police officers, detectives, and clerical staff had any knowledge of the 2002 Sandusky event. Chief of Police Harmon testified to this fact to the Grand Jury. How come? Because Schultz had no involvement with any policing activity. He didn’t carry a gun, arrest and detain suspects, investigate crime scenes. He only watched over the budget and received data and crime reports upon request. This is why he was able to separate himself from any involvement in any investigation. It was not in his job description to perform any police work. And the information he received from Paterno and McQueary was never turned over to the Penn State Police nor Children’s Protective Services.

    Another aside:

    You: “He was approached the day after the episode was over; and the trial did not indicate any subsequent episodes with Victim 2”

    No, no, and no. You don’t understand pedophilia or the pedophile! You have no right nor no facts to conclude the “episode” was over that evening. Without question, Sandusky’s psychological and physical abuse of the child was continued that night, the next day, and beyond — 24/7. It’s like a child kidnapped, he/she is considered imprisoned 24/7 up to and until they are rescued.

    Skywalker, the remaining court proceedings notwithstanding, the court of public opinion has found these individuals guilty of child endangerment based on the evidence both circumstantial and direct I have outlined for you in the aforementioned.

  73. skywatcherj says: Feb 11, 2014 3:04 PM

    Where to start?

    The reactions and positions of many competent people on both sides of this matter draw from court procedures and records–some established, and many conflicting and unresolved. Indictments and depositions start the process; actual trials are designed to resolve them. Most of the issues in immediate discussion here await those trials.

    “Alas..” ??” “Smile.” ?? Condescending presumption??

    “The incompetent Dr. Dranov…” As passionate and self-assured as you seem to be of this, in all seriousness, you might do us all a public service by personally engaging a campaign to see that Dr Dranov is either indicted for failure to report (to police, not Mr. Paterno!), or de-credentialed for professional incompetence. You owe it to the public we both seek to protect from future victimization. Dranov didn’t testify that he backed off (is your opinion on this based on documented record?). He testified to his decision. So far, after that public-record declaration, he remains at large.

    Did I need to say “not substantial enough to report TO POLICE?” Isn’t that what you and I both mean by reporting? Since when is reporting to Paterno equivalent to mandated reporting by law? “Not true”??

    The repeated word “speculation” in your entry is
    not at all drawn from mine.

    I do not agree with you that 5 people chose to act deferentially toward Sandusky. Some may have wanted to be more careful about having a strong case, since Sandusky was a big name at the time, and failure to have their act together might have subjected any/all of them to a ruinous libel suit. Dranov had no investment in Sandusky’s reputation (did they even know each other, as you claim?). Paterno stood only to gain if Sandusky went down.

    Neither do I agree with you that the “child victim” was made “invisible” by choice, or deference to Sandusky. McQuery hadn’t a clue how to identify the younger one (who actually may have been an athletic 14 year old). He was the only one whose quick call to 911 could have elicited intervention in the incident.
    After the episode, he did not “allege rape” to either Dranov or Paterno. He might have alleged rape to Curley or Schultz, and they are said to have contacted the Second Mile to identify him. What happened to that will come out in the trial.

    True, Schultz “did not carry a gun.” Perhaps neither did PA AG Davis, or State Police Commissioner Noonan, or former AG later-Governor Corbett. Yet all were were authorized to activate police investigations at any time. (Corbett was pretty slow initiating his, until his 6-figure campaign donation from the Second Mile was deposited.) But if Schultz’s involvement in campus police was as nominal as you suggest, why was he the only PSU administrator who was privy to the detailed content of the closed 1998 investigation of Sandusky? And when McQuery was asked during his deposition in early 2012 why he didn’t contact police, why was his reply, “When I talked to Schultz, I felt I WAS contacting the police!” never challenged in either the court or the national media? He was, in fact, commended as an excellent witness.

    Your impassioned “No, no, and no” paragraph is admirably dramatized. But it does not refect how the discrete episodes of pedophilic behavior were accurately entered into the court record–some isolated, others chronic. There was only one episode involving “Victim 2″ and some others, in the court record.

    “You don’t understand pedophilia or the pedophile! You have no right nor no facts to conclude…” I beg your pardon. What qualifies you to declare what my understanding or my moral rights are? Condescending presumption? Do you know me? Without elaborating, I have experiences with cases involving claims of pedophilia–some affirmed, some ultimately discredited. I know what unchecked pedophilia can do to people. I also know that mere accusations can irreversibly ruin innocent lives–even when the accused are clearly exonerated. And the ruined lives of the slandered are no less a tragedy.

    For heaven’s sake, let us allow the disputed claims to run their course, free of condescension toward those on either side.

  74. mike4949 says: Feb 11, 2014 10:44 PM

    To Skywatcher

    Thank you for you detailed “blow by blow” reply to my blow by blows.

    You: “…He was approached the day after the episode was over; and the trial did not indicate any subsequent episodes with Victim 2 (or anyone else on campus, as far as one can tell).’

    This was the weak opinion I called you on. Alas! If in fact you have had experience with cases involving pedophilia then you must now finally understand that neither you nor I can make the assumption “the episode was over.” Shower 2001 had to be treated as on-going “unchecked pedophilia!” It’s how the police view such “episodes” until adult is separated from child. What I caught you on was your subtle attempt to defuse, neutralize an alleged event that needed to be viewed as being horrendous!

    Skywalker, you again pathetically tried to even defuse the notion that the victim was a little boy by exclaiming “… who actually may have been an athletic 14 year old.” Sky, that kid was a “little boy in stature, in mentality, and in age who was being abused by a molesting monster. HE WAS A CHILD! Please!

    How disingenuous to bring up the alleged victim 2′s claim he was never abused! What the victim said eight years later is completely and totally irrelevant to what went down in 2001 and to the proper response that needed to be enacted. Jeez!

    Then you came out with the notion “… failure to have their act together might have subjected any/all of them to a ruinous libel suit. ”

    Balderdash Sky! Then in any case similar to Shower 2001, “Don’t no one do nothing anyway, you might done get in trouble!” Yow! Nice Sky, you are the answer to every pedophile’s filthy prayer!!! Now do you see why I questioned your understanding of child abuse and the shaky morality you applied in defending all the adult protagonists!? You too have forgotten all about the alleged child victim. I believe had it been you on the scene in 2001, the kid would have been ignored big time!

    You: “… PA AG Davis, or State Police Commissioner Noonan, or former AG later-Governor Corbett. Yet all were authorized to activate police investigations at any time.”

    Yes, INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE FACT! But please! For any crime that is believed to have transpired, especially one of violence, you never go to the AG, the Police Commissioner, or the Governor – you go to the cop in the street – first time all the time. Again, jeez!

    You: “… And when McQuery was asked during his deposition in early 2012 why he didn’t contact police, why was his reply, “When I talked to Schultz, I felt I WAS contacting the police!” never challenged in either the court or the national media? He was, in fact, commended as an excellent witness.”

    Nice overstatement! McQueary has not been praised as a witness but condemned across the nation for not intervening physically or for not calling 911.

    You: “After the episode, he did not “allege rape” to either Dranov or Paterno.”

    He didn’t have too!!! As long as both understood that something sexually untoward occurred, that was enough to contact the police immediately without hesitation.

    An aside: if you want to go after Dr. Dranov, be my guest. He really was the behind the scenes set up guy to Paterno and McQueary!

    You: “… What qualifies you to declare what my understanding or my moral rights are? Condescending presumption?”

    No it’s factual assumption based on your very own remarks as I have outlined in my narrative. Sky the difference between our views is that when you first judged the whole affair, your first thought was repelling all the criticism JoePa was getting for not doing enough. My first impression about the whole affair was 100% about the child victim. Could something have been done more expeditiously to save that child that wouldn’t have taken eight years to expedite?

    You: “… I also know that mere accusations can irreversibly ruin innocent lives–even when the accused are clearly exonerated. And the ruined lives of the slandered are no less a tragedy.”

    How sad. Look at all the lives irreparably ruined that would have been wondrously intact today if just one lousy 911 call had been made Jeeeeeeez!

    Sky, you are all about Paterno. I’m all about the child. Your hypothetical approach in 2001 would have produced today’s PSU scandal in full force. My hypothetical approach would have incarcerated Sandusky and prevented him from trolling State College for the next eight years. And my approach would have saved countless victims and preserved JoePa’s legacy.

    Namaste

  75. skywatcherj says: Feb 12, 2014 1:18 AM

    Well, it is understood that your mind was made up a long time ago.

    If the notion of describing the 2001 shower episode as a defined event is offensive to you, so be it. This does not appear to be a major issue to people who discuss the matter from both sides in most venues.

    The “10-year-old boy raped in the shower” has become so mythically poignant as to define a collective visceral response to all that follows. It was mentioned in the AG report in November 2011, but its factuality has been disputed by McQuery’s own testimony in several venues since then. And when the party himself declares that he was 14 at the time, that there was no sexual encounter at all, it seems fair-minded at least to revisit the image for accuracy. To be accused of being disingenuous for allowing all sides to be heard before forming a final opinion is bizarre.

    Those experienced in prosecuting pedophile cases will consistently affirm that such cases must be carefully crafted to succeed. Failed cases do leave careless accusations vulnerable to libel suits. “Don’t no one do nothing anyway, you might done get in trouble!” is your line, not mine–nor must we assume that it was the intent of any of the accused parties here. But they would have to be sure they had a case that would hold up, especially when the accused had an excellent reputation. That is why Victim 9 faced such resistance at first.

    I did not make it up: McQuery was praised as an excellent witness on national TV after a depostion in January 2012. And his remark about Schultz was a significant quote included in the presentation.

    Going to the cop in the street via 911 seems to be the only acceptable recourse for you in 2001. And you seem to asume this would have stopped Sandusky and spared all the later victims their tragedy. OK, but when the cop in the street arrives at an empty shower room and no verifiable action, or identity can be established for the alleged victim even by age or stature, the case slows down.

    Calling 911, resorting to the cop in the street, spawned a very thorough investigation by all the parties we hoped would get on board in 1998, and Sandusky was still cleared. There was even less to work with in 2001. Whence comes your certainty that 911 would have made the difference this time? Trying a different reporting venue–the one directed by university policy at the time–in hopes of getting to the bottom of it may have been no more successsful in “nailing the culprit”, but that does not make it moral failure.

    The Curley-Schultz trials may show us that they colluded to protect Sandusky, or that they blew their best chance to do what 911 could not do 3 years earlier, or that there simply was still not enough evidence to finish out the case. The least we can do is learn from the trial when it unfolds before forming permanent conclusions as much of the public has done.

    The tragedy of Sandusky’s victims, and the repugnance of his crimes, is disputed by almost no one. People on both sides of the remaining issues have shown great support for the victims; people on both sides of the remaining issues rejoice that Sandusky is in jail. Now that so much has been resolved, the remaining issues are before us, and yes, much of that does involve the alleged involvement of Paterno, an otherwise exemplary standard bearer in how college athletics can be practiced. He has been accused of enabling a pedophile to protect his reputation.

    Who enabled Sandusky?

    Paterno and the football program had no motive. He had despised the man for decades, before any of this happened. And Mr. Fina, the only person to successfully prosecute Sandusky, called him the only person involved who actively tried to get an investigation going. Unless you believe Mr. Fina is lying or deluded, we must consider the possibility that some of the wrong people have been identified as enablers.

    Who enabled Sandusky? People who really did have something to lose if he went down. Follow the money, and the power, that was at stake.

    But scapegoating and slander generates a different kind of victim. No more justice is achieved, and no more safety is in place for potential victims in the future, when the wrong parties are vilified.

    And please, don’t implicate, depricate, ridicule a sincere debater as one more potential enabler, because I see things differently about Paterno.
    You did not get the likes of that from many of your targets. We did not deserve such treatment in a civil discussion. It disgraces the intent of the greeting “Namaste.”

  76. mike4949 says: Feb 13, 2014 9:46 PM

    To Skywatcher

    It’s fascinating and quite revealing that when I specifically address a 24 hour period in 2001, you come a rushing breathlessly to diffuse and counteract any truth, any evidence, any reality presented by yourself presenting information graphically unrelated. For graphic example:

    I have stated that four experienced, educated men believed from McQueary that a sexual advance was enacted by Sandusky. And these facts are all court documented. You never disputed this. You also grudgingly agreed, after I presented my extensive knowledge and experience in dealing with kids who had been sexually abused, that it was appropriate to “assume” the alleged molestation was on-going that night, the next day, and beyond. And you also agreed by your non response, had the adult that evening been a complete stranger, there is no question JoePa would have dialed 911 immediately without hesitation. (No way he waits 24 hours before deciding to call an athletic director). Why? Because his whole attention would have been given, directed to the safety and protection of the kid. This there can be no dispute.

    So instead of agreeing from the aforementioned that what I’ve stated is realistic and plausible you venture out into proverbial “left field” by attempting to distract all readers from the evidence I’ve presented objectively without bias. How? Because with bias you make a big deal about Shower 1998 and how the police never found Sandusky guilty. First of all, Shower 1998 was completely and totally a different event with different protagonists and saw no charges made by anyone including the police, the kid, or the mother. Case closed! You were comparing apples and oranges. Why? Because in Shower 2001, unbelievably and almost unprecedentedly, there was an adult witness to the alleged abuse! And that factor alone would have seen a most extensive investigation of Sandusky by the police. For the police had already the now incriminating “red flag” from 1998!

    You: “Whence comes your certainty that 911 would have made the difference this time (as opposed to 1998)?

    See above! What a pathetic, juvenile statement of speculation you made to irrationally excuse anyone of dialing 911 in 2001!

    Then you go on and on about all the different changes in his witnessing you feel McQueary has given over the years. Hey maybe so, but all of that is irrelevant to that night in 2001 when a policing authority was needed right then to come in and authenticate if any abuse had occurred!

    Sky, you even played the libel card as well as the slander card as an excuse for Paterno not to call the police. A kid is in alleged danger but no one is to do anything for fear of being sued. That can’t happened, never has happened to any citizen suspecting a child in trouble, unless it was revealed the supposed witness had malice aforethought towards the accused adult.

    Then you gleefully bring up that victim 2 states he was never abused – eight years later. Pathetic Sky and totally irrelevant, for no one knew that to be true or false in 2001. No one knew because the police were never called in to investigate a witness’s very specific charges.

    You say people over the years enabled Sandusky. Fine, but that idea, whether accurate or not, has no meaning to what JoePa was legally and ethically obligated to do that particular morning in 2001. A kid was in danger! Call the police!

    Maybe this well help you understand how egregious JoePa’s conduct was in 2001. He revealed in 2011 to his close friend Lenny Moore that he knew Sandusky was a molester from McQueary’s agonized explanation to him that morning; and attempted for two years afterwards to convince Spanier to do something about the pedophile old coach! Sky, read Moore’s first hand, in person, word for word quotes of JoePa’s knowledge and his feelings.

    Namaste

  77. themob531 says: Feb 13, 2014 11:00 PM

    @mike4949

    WOW! It’s starting to become apparent to me, Mike, that your penchent to relentlessly debate this topic with your epic long rebuttals reveal how you’re not less interested in the welfare of the child victims but instead more interested in the opportunity to demonstrate your argumentative skills and journalistic writing capabilities. The redundancy to regurgitate the same talking points over and over in an effort to convince yourself and others that you are correct makes me believe that you maybe simply using this thread in preparation of writing our President’s next speech. You feel it’s necessary to write ten sentences explaning your points when three will do. An example of your obsession to type was your psychoanalysis of sprtmano who is obviously a moron but also someone who wasn’t worth a response, especially as long as the one you provided. You can pretend on here that you have some morale high ground and act like you know precisely what you would do in that situation or one similar but the fact remains that regardless of what you like to believe, the reason the apparent witness who failed to intervene at the time is not being charged with covering it up because the DA needs him inorder to have a case against the others. Also Lenny Moore still defends Paterno’s character and is upset by his downfall.

  78. mike4949 says: Feb 14, 2014 12:09 AM

    To Themob

    Me thinks thou doth protest too much!

    But I respect your Doubting Thomas mentality. Not that I’m the Second Coming dontcha know! LoL!

    Here’s my deal. I have been a JoePa supporter and admirer for the last fifty years. And I have been a professional advocate professionally advocating for children the past fifty years. So you are right. I am like a bull charging relentlessly at one and everyone whenever I see the “red flags” of ignorance and indecision and of selfish self interest flying all over the electronic pages of the internet. And yes, thank you for the praise, but my eloquence is inspired, facilitated, motivated by all the yet heretofore unknown and undiscovered victims of pedophile monsters!

    Themob, I know you are a good guy who feels JoePa has been misrepresented and defiled. I get it. But what hasn’t been misrepresented nor defiled is the one behavior he displayed at the tragic expense of one of my kids. One of my kids, just like the hundreds of kids I’ve come into contact who have suffered unmentionable atrocities because of well meaning adults who didn’t want to rock the family boat; or didn’t want to expose themselves to any uncomfortable retaliations, or felt the kid in time would work out the abuse when they became older.

    Themob, do you feel me here? Do you feel my disgust? Do you feel my recrimination against those who would rationalize or defend any behavior that tried to protected the adult rather than free the kid!?

    Themob, its okay to admire JoePa for all the good he had done for PSU and for NCAA football. But please step back and take a deep breath. Yes, it’s really okay to denounce JoePa’s filthy behavior of dismissiveness and abandonment toward that one child (my child), and still hold the man in the highest of esteem!

    Note: Themob, I’ve gotten to know you a tad and you definitely would have immediately summoned a policing authority had you been aware in the slightest that a kid was in some kind of sexual danger. Assuming you did not know of the iconic Sandusky! LoL! So would I! But not everyone is privy to my experiences. Not everyone would be as non-hesitant as you and I would be in these kind of situations. And that is the reason I have been as you so eloquently outlined; “…interested in the opportunity to demonstrate your argumentative skills and journalistic writing capabilities. The redundancy to regurgitate the same talking points over and over in an effort to convince yourself and others that you are correct…”

    Yes, guilty as charged. I will engage in any repartee with anyone until everyone is convinced that regardless of doubt, of who is involved, of the unclarity of the situation, of the law, of the confusion, of the hesitancy, of the fear, of the intimidation, of the insecurity of it all, when anyone who has even a smidgen of suspicion that a kid is at all possibly in harms way physically or emotionally, one reveals that smidgen of suspicion to a professional policing authority and let them take over the entire investigation. If one errs, it’s always fundamentally prudent to err on the side of a potential child victim.

    Another three notes: You have no argument from me about numb nut McQueary’s guilt. And yes, you are right bout the DA in this matter.

    Yes, Moore does defend Paterno’s character but unwittingly he did not realize that when he stated Paterno recognized from McQueary that Sandusky was a pedophile monster, he was revealing Paterno’s two year direct abandonment of the alleged victim — his two year failure to simply go to the police so that the kid could be discovered and Sandusky finally and thoroughly investigated.

    Hey Themob, you express yourself very well in the written word. You go, boy!

  79. mike4949 says: Feb 17, 2014 1:40 AM

    To Skywatcher

    And the truth always gets the last word.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!