Penn state fans about to go postal...

CU-UF said:

Actually if you saw Jay Paterno on Finebaum, that was his argument, that Joe and Sandusky were great friends and that his dad had Sandusky over a bunch to play with the kids, and if Joe thought Sandusky was some kind of sicko, why would he have him over to his house with the kids?

So Jay Paterno says they were great friends, but you say they werent? Cant keep stories straight?

Click to expand...

I guess I'd go by what Sue Paterno, Joe's wife has to say...

When Penn State's football teams traveled to bowl games, Sue Paterno said, Jerry Sandusky often played in the pool with children — sometimes her children.

"Do you think we'd let our kids play with someone who might be a pedophile?" Joe Paterno's widow asked. "Obviously, we were all totally unaware."
...
She said the Paternos did not socialize with Sandusky but did call the former defensive coordinator "in some ways very child-like."

Click to expand...

http://articles.mcall.com/2013-02-1...130211_1_freeh-report-sue-paterno-jay-paterno

MJMGator said:

Anyone that thinks there weren't NUMEROUS warning signs over the course of DECADES of child rape is a total moron. He showered with kids, took them on road trips sharing rooms, etc.. You cannot possibly believe that Paterno was only notified ONCE over the course of 4 decades about possible inappropriate behavior, can you? I can't believe he never personally witnessed inappropriate behavior over the span of 40 years. It's folks like PIF, with blinders on that allowed this to go on for as long as it did. Nothing should ever be put above the welfare of a child.

Click to expand...

^ This. It is stretching credulity to think Paterno could have worked closely with this guy for 30 years and had no inkling of what was going on.

What I don't understand is, why did Paterno turn a blind eye to this? Any answer, aside from Paterno actually participating in these heinous acts himself, makes no sense (and I am in NO WAY asserting he did). Sandusky by all accounts was a good defensive coach - but hardly irreplaceable (and even if he was "irreplaceable", a game is not nearly as important as the welfare of children). What did Paterno have to gain by keeping him around and burying this against such an inconceivable cost? Even in the unlikely event he was swept out for having a dirtball on his staff, at least he'd have his morality, ethics and soul intact. Could any human being be that shortsighted? Trading the cost of winning football games against the welfare of children is nothing but evil, and up until this story broke last week, I had not thought Paterno evil. I do now (though I will confess a part of me hopes additional evidence comes to light that might show Paterno didn't know anything after all - though I guess that changes nothing for those poor kids).

And PIF: there are some issues worth digging your heels in on. This ain't one of them.

Nobody learns about a pedophile from the pedophile. That's the point - people have to
garner suspicions from inordinate attention given to children by some adult, especially over
a 30+ year period. Sweeping it under the rug with such monikers as "whacky Sandusky" because
he showers a lot with preteen boys, grabs them from behind in hallways etc. isn't realistic. No other
adult associated with PSU football exhibited those behaviors. The PA law itemizes what people are
mandated reporters and coaches are listed in there. I just cannot believe Paterno could parallel
Sandusky's presence for 30+ years and not be curious about the meaning of various nicknames
palyers, GAs etc devised for Sandusky. ??

Word on the street is that PIF can't come closer than 300 feet to a school, daycare, or playground.

Gatorbreath said:

turn a blind eye to this?

Click to expand...

Naval battle, British fleet against French. The British were getting clobbered. The British
fleet commander from his ship signaled for all to retreat. Captain Horatio Nelson wanted to
fight on. His 2nd in command bluntly informed him that they were violating an order. Nelson
told his officer to give him the spyglass, that he wanted to see the signaled order for himself.
Nelson was blind in one eye and he purposely held the glass up to that eye. And that's the
origin of "turn a blind eye". Incidentally Nelson lead the British to victory that day.

Gatorbreath said:

^ This. It is stretching credulity to think Paterno could have worked closely with this guy for 30 years and had no inkling of what was going on.

What I don't understand is, why did Paterno turn a blind eye to this? Any answer, aside from Paterno actually participating in these heinous acts himself, makes no sense (and I am in NO WAY asserting he did). Sandusky by all accounts was a good defensive coach - but hardly irreplaceable (and even if he was "irreplaceable", a game is not nearly as important as the welfare of children). What did Paterno have to gain by keeping him around and burying this against such an inconceivable cost? Even in the unlikely event he was swept out for having a dirtball on his staff, at least he'd have his morality, ethics and soul intact. Could any human being be that shortsighted? Trading the cost of winning football games against the welfare of children is nothing but evil, and up until this story broke last week, I had not thought Paterno evil. I do now (though I will confess a part of me hopes additional evidence comes to light that might show Paterno didn't know anything after all - though I guess that changes nothing for those poor kids).

And PIF: there are some issues worth digging your heels in on. This ain't one of them.

Click to expand...

I think the difference is that I believe that Paterno is innocent until proven guilty while most of the other posters on the thread are taking the opposite position. Again, the bulk of Paterno's interactions with Sandusky were in the workplace until 1999 when Sandusky was let go. In 2001, a vague allegation was shared with Paterno and he reported that to his management.

Everyone knew of Sandusky's interest in young boys but that is not the same as saying they were aware of improprieties. I'm currently working on a project with a man who is very active in the Boy Scouts. There is nothing in his interactions with me that would suggest or not suggest he was a threat to young boys. How would I possibly know?

Again, we have Sue Paterno saying that they did not socialize with the Sanduskys but they did let their kids play in the pool with Sandusky. Are you suggesting that the Paternos put their own children at risk in order to protect a mediocre assistant coach? It simply makes no sense.

How is a dead man going to respond to allegations that someone told him something in 1976? As far as the school, it is apparent that the decided it was to their benefit to write checks to people making these ancient claims if they were even remotely credible. The cost of writing checks is less that dealing with continual bad publicity and unhappy alumni.

T REX said:

"Years before Jerry Sandusky was charged with child sexual abuse, a psychologist told Penn State police in 1998 that the former assistant football coach acted the way a pedophile might.
In her assessment, Alycia Chambers described her involvement in a case in which the mother of a young boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate contact with him. A redacted version of that evaluation was published Saturday by NBC News.
"My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a 'loving,' 'special' relationship," Chambers wrote.
The assessment could be significant because it suggests the university was warned about Sandusky, in no uncertain terms, as early as 1998, but did not stop the alleged abuse."

Click to expand...

Very true, however, there was another either psychiatrist or psychologist (a male) whose report was the opposite and PSU apparently chose to go with that one.

pilot-in-fla said:

I think the difference is that I believe that Paterno is innocent until proven guilty while most of the other posters on the thread are taking the opposite position. Again, the bulk of Paterno's interactions with Sandusky were in the workplace until 1999 when Sandusky was let go. In 2001, a vague allegation was shared with Paterno and he reported that to his management.

Everyone knew of Sandusky's interest in young boys but that is not the same as saying they were aware of improprieties. I'm currently working on a project with a man who is very active in the Boy Scouts. There is nothing in his interactions with me that would suggest or not suggest he was a threat to young boys. How would I possibly know?

Again, we have Sue Paterno saying that they did not socialize with the Sanduskys but they did let their kids play in the pool with Sandusky. Are you suggesting that the Paternos put their own children at risk in order to protect a mediocre assistant coach? It simply makes no sense.

How is a dead man going to respond to allegations that someone told him something in 1976? As far as the school, it is apparent that the decided it was to their benefit to write checks to people making these ancient claims if they were even remotely credible. The cost of writing checks is less that dealing with continual bad publicity and unhappy alumni.

Click to expand...

I think you are confusing laws and ethics. Yes, Paterno is legally innocent, he did nothing that overtly broke the law and certainly wouldnt be convicted if a case was ever brought while he was still alive. But I think we can also agree that just because the law has burdens of evidence it does not mean it is always the final arbitrator of whether a wrong was committed. Ethics are much less tangible than laws and involve a collective society determining what is good and what is bad. Ethics can and do change over time. In this case, given the information that we know, Paterno acted unethically (based upon the small sample of this board it appears all except you share this ethic). It ultimately comes down to did Paterno make an ethical decision when he was told of this behavior, went to the administration, and then washed his hands of it? Everyone here is saying no (and I agree). As the iconic head coach, he ethically could have and should have done more to expose and put an end to Sandusky when he was fully alerted to this. Now we have these other stories coming out that perhaps he knew something strange was going on beforehand. Yes, they are heresay, yes Paterno's family is denying this as would be expected, yes he is not around to refute it, but it continues to add to a body of information that to points to Paterno's unethical behavior when he was told about Sandusky.

First of all, I'm not too worried about being in a minority position on this issue -- won't be the first time or the last.

Hindsight is always 20-20. It is easy to look back and reassess the situation based on new information. Paterno said before he died (and he was very sick at the time) that he wished he had followed through more on the vague 2001 allegation that he passed on. But what would have happened had he done that? The folks he passed it along to, including the supervisor of the University police force, would likely have told him that they had taken care of it and, indeed, it appears they believed that they had. In 2001, Paterno was not Sandusky's supervisor nor was he in charge of the school's athletic shower facilities.

The Freeh report was full on comments from custodial personnel who had seen Sandusky in the showers with boys that Paterno "had to know". But how was he to have known? Paterno may have been a legendary figure in State College for decades but he put his pants on one leg at a time and wouldn't know what was going on in the school's athletic facilities off hours unless someone specifically told him.

Being a legendary figure made and continues to make Paterno a target and the fact that he died in the midst of this whole mess made it easy for the school's management to blame him as well.

Paterno's failure to report directly to the Child Protective Services is the criminal offense.It's a crime to
report to any other authority and not report to CPS experts - experts at interviewing pedophiles and spotting
their "winsome-ways", spotting their verbal slip-ups. CPS experts would not care about whether PSU was
protected from scandal ... as local police (fans) might.

The other 3 PSU administrators are awaiting criminal prosecution, the same prosecution that Paterno
would face were he alive. A mandated reporter has to contact CPS. How can those administrators be
prosecuted but not Paterno if all the suspicions passed through Paterno first. Paterno and the GA, any
staff with suspicions, they were "first-line" protectors mandated by law to report to CPS.

CPS experts conduct all these investigations. Reporting it to other authorities is why Sandusky was not
stopped and convicted on those first suspicions and even States Attorney's fail because the pedophile
experts did not get a chance to dig out the evidence. Sandusky could not fool them with his "I guess I'm
just a kid at heart" explanation for his concentrated hours with prepubescent boys, his being around them
naked (showers & when else?). Sandusky's masterpiece = his charity for underprivileged boys (boys needing
a father figure), the pedophilia experts would have taken that as a red flag, a strike against him. That's just
the opposite stance that the regular police and State's Attorney would take. Pedophiles look for activities
to allow opportunity to groom their possible victim. A pedophile picks a kid (he knows the kid's neediness)
and applies Tactics 1,2 3 ... oops the kid balks at 3, pulls away, shows discomfort = boom, the pedophile drops
him and starts with another kid he's scouted. That kid gets Tactics 1,2,3 ... good, he's not balking ergo
Tactics 4,5,6 bingo! he's groomed for overt sexual contact.

These pedophilia expert interviewers would not push questions onto Sandusky, not put words in his mouth
like typical police interrogators. They would just gently verbally tap Sandusky with vague unpointed questions
and he would start rambling his "I'm a saint speil" and reveal his guilt by the words he chose, the groupings
of words for phrases, the odd pronouns, that would not be the statements these experts would
expect from an adult with the normal degree of mental separateness from such kids so young and unlike
Sandusky in their cultural place. They would afterwards study his speech on tape over and over looking for
evidence no other interrogators would look for or have expectancy that the truth is there. It could be that
the first round of questions shows the need for follow up questions. These people will catch what that one
psychologist caught and more. You've got to report it to give them that chance to stop a pedophile. If they
had gotten to the step where trained counselors gently ask the kids special questions the dam would have
burst with confessions of secrets the kids knew they should not be keeping.

rogdochar said:

Naval battle, British fleet against French. The British were getting clobbered. The British
fleet commander from his ship signaled for all to retreat. Captain Horatio Nelson wanted to
fight on. His 2nd in command bluntly informed him that they were violating an order. Nelson
told his officer to give him the spyglass, that he wanted to see the signaled order for himself.
Nelson was blind in one eye and he purposely held the glass up to that eye. And that's the
origin of "turn a blind eye". Incidentally Nelson lead the British to victory that day.

Click to expand...

I did not know that story, or remember he was blind in one eye. Thanks for sharing.

pilot-in-fla said:

I believe that Paterno is innocent until proven guilty

Click to expand...

I'm certain most, if not all posters on this board share this core value of our criminal justice system. And obviously Paterno is not around anymore to defend himself. And I agree that Penn State and other implicated parties want to put this ugly incident behind them as quickly as possible and that likely means paying quick, quiet and confidential settlements, rather than litigating it with the beyond uncomfortable spectacle of victims testifying to the heinous acts done to them when they were little.

All that said: discussions such as these obviously do not rise to the level of the courtroom standard of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt". For me, they come much closer to the "I don't have to stick my hand in a bucket of water to know it'll get wet" standard. And very simply, it is borderline impossible to work with someone closely for 30 years, hear the attendant scuttlebutt and know, to use your words, of "Sandusky's interest in young boys" and not suspect something is terribly amiss. Showering with them? Sharing rooms? C'mon. And given that we are talking about child molestation, that suspicion alone should have warranted decisive, corrective action. Add to that the nature of the job of these guys. Theirs is not the typical "office job". They're in and out of locker rooms. In 30 years, do you really believe a pervert with Sandusky's proclivities and proximity to what he wanted didn't tip his hand? Assuming you're straight, PIF, let's say you worked with and shared locker space with women for 30 years. At some point, you don't think you might get caught catching a look at one of the women, or that your coworkers might catch on that you dig chicks? I played football through my sophomore year in college, played basketball through high school and have been in lots of locker rooms. My high school and college locker rooms were, to an extent, places to hang out. The coaches were always passing through, kibitzing with the players (normal kibitzing, NOT Sandusky kibitzing). I'm telling you, it doesn't take 30 years to figure someone out - especially in that type of environment. It's not a friggin regular office. The bottom line is, it just stretches credulity (past the breaking point for me) that Paterno could not have known. Or strongly suspected.

pilot-in-fla said:

Again, we have Sue Paterno saying that they did not socialize with the Sanduskys but they did let their kids play in the pool with Sandusky.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure any Paterno is an objective player in this and what they say needs to be evaluated with that in mind.

No one is trying Paterno in a court of law and it's high standard to prove guilt. He is being tried in the court of public opinion for which their are far lower standards of guilt and innocence and punishments administered merely to reputations (when the accused is dead). Based on both common sense and what looks to be overwhelming hearsay "evidence", he sure does look guilty to me.

The Freeh report folks made an extensive effort to link Paterno to Sandusky's actions and failed. Apparently there was "scuttlebutt" among certain people but none of that got to either the parties responsible for the facilities or Paterno.

pilot-in-fla said:

The Freeh report folks made an extensive effort to link Paterno to Sandusky's actions and failed. Apparently there was "scuttlebutt" among certain people but none of that got to either the parties responsible for the facilities or Paterno.

Click to expand...

It failed in linking as much as the Paterno response report failed in showing their is no link. We have no idea if he is innocent or guilty. But common sense says over 30 years of working with someone, then allowing them to still have an office and operate out of the football complex after the allegations in 1998 (including allowing him to take boys on bowl game trips to stay in the same room) which is documented. It's hard to sell he was completely innocent on the issue.

pilot-in-fla said:

Again, we have Sue Paterno saying that they did not socialize with the Sanduskys but they did let their kids play in the pool with Sandusky. Are you suggesting that the Paternos put their own children at risk in order to protect a mediocre assistant coach? It simply makes no sense.

How is a dead man going to respond to allegations that someone told him something in 1976?

Click to expand...

In regards to the recent surfacing of court documents indicating a victim told Joe about the abuse, I think it's a given that allegations leveled at a dead man can't be answered by him. However, it is equally absurd to accept the word of his family (wife) on what happened, what Joe did or did not know - she wasn't there. The victim was. The victim spoke up when it happened, not after Joe died.

I'd also question two aspects of Joe admitting knowledge. First, I'd question the era in which this occurred and what the social mindset was. Rog keeps raising the point of "mandated reporters". When was that established? I don't have the answer, but prior to the recent 5-10 yrs, I don't believe the term even existed. So for the 30-ish years prior to that legislation, the social mindset appears to have been "Don't ask. Don't Tell." Same for Catholic priests during that era. Same for gays in the military for that era. I don't think it's a fair claim that Joe acted improperly 'for that era'. Today? Hell yes, we're all bent out of shape and demand anyone report any suspicion. That is today. Back then, it simply got buried - whether you are a premier football program, the Catholic church, or an active serving officer of the military. The decades for Joe's growing up was filled with the philosophy that such subjects are just too bad to talk about, so don't.

The second question I'd raise is a mix of 'if he knew' would he acknowledge it and who would he tell? I wouldn't be hard pressed to believe Joe was told and then simply pushed it out of his head. "I can't deal with this. It didn't happen." Regardless of if it happened or not. I'm not sure he could process it internally. In the early years, perhaps his belief system couldn't accept this type of information (putting aside owning his responsibility in hiring, and retaining such a person with these allegations - and putting aside any guilt perhaps associated with not acting on it)....I'm not sure his moral belief system could accept the possibility and process it as a reality. In the later years, I think Joe was so out of it he likely wouldn't remember what socks he put on, much less what was alleged or happening with members of his staff off hours. Many may state there were too many indicators to miss - I offer that if you do not wish to see such signals, you may not see them. But step ahead and assume he saw the signs. Would he tell his bosses? Sure - he doesn't want to be the bad guy here making the call on truth or not, pass the buck and let them do it (for which they have been tried). Would he tell his wife? I think surely not. It's not the type of thing people of that era talked about, I'm not sure he would admit such a mistake especially considering he still employed the guy. More likely is to disassociate from him (ie, "we didn't socialize with Sandusky"), and the wife may unwittingly allow Sandussky to swim with the kids. Her statements are perfectly aligned with Joe not knowing, or with Joe not telling her. I give no credence to her statements other than being left out of the know.

====

Before anyone accuses me of defending Joe, I'll state my belief is that he did know. I don't believe he did right by the victims. He may have been too weak to stand up for what's right, or told by his bosses to let them handle it, or whatever - all excuses that do no erase what was done, nor that I believe he knew it and failed to act accordingly. That's not just with today's sense of what's right, that's by what's right according to my life long definition.

TLB said:

I don't think it's a fair claim that Joe acted improperly 'for that era'.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any time that raping little boys in the shower was socially acceptable in the US.

Perhaps you are from the Middle East?

Additionally to our fair assumptions on Paterno not blindly working beside Sandusky (his DC) for 30 years,
and our not accepting JoPa's wife exonerating him, there's the story of Sandusky spending 4 hours with a
guest-kid in his basement with not once the Mrs popping down to see if they wanted some refreshments ?
Years after years ?? ... So wives know how to "not know" hubby's business. These are the "buried" ways of pedophilia enabling. The experts see these trappings played out every single case of grooming. Thousands and thousands of recorded cases, always after the damaging crime, always with generic steps recognizable to experts and somewhat to common sense.

Law98gator said:

I'm not aware of any time that raping little boys in the shower was socially acceptable in the US.

Perhaps you are from the Middle East?

Click to expand...

Was Joe the one raping little boys in the shower?

Perhaps you misread my point. Or, more likely, chose to misconstrue it for entertainment value?