Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[count2infinity]

SDD, did you write this? It's really well done, if so...

http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/20/an-op ... olbermann/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tifosi77]

That was an entertaining read.

[the errey i breathe]

I think that the person who has somehow managed to avoid the spotlight is McQueary. He's the one who actually saw what happened and should have done the same things Joe should have done and possibly even step in and stop what he had seen. This topic seems to have shifted focus on Joe dropping the ball which he did, but I honestly find McQueary to be the worst of the non-Sandusky bunch. There is no way that most people see that, then go home and ask their dad what to do without making a bigger deal out of it.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

SDD, did you write this? It's really well done, if so...

http://onwardstate.com/2015/01/20/an-op ... olbermann/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wish I could write that well. Very well done and encompasses many of the reasons I, and I believe others, continue to question the narrative that Paterno and PSU engaged in a coverup to allow Sandusky to rape children.

[shmenguin]

Come on Dish, that's not part of "the" problem. It's just an annoyance. A bigger part of the problem is so many people desperately trying to absolve paterno of guilt.

Why isn't it? The problem is akin to that which plagues our political discourse. No one talks to each other, and worse yet, no one listens. It's all about tossing salvos without discernment and making pithy or snarky judgments. It's all about stamping labels on others. You're with us or against us. You're crazy or you're spot on. It's my biggest objection to Twitter.

So we've got a spectrum, from people desperately trying to absolve Paterno <-----> people desperately trying to damn him. As for the relativity, I don't care who is making a "larger annoyance" of themselves.

i guess i don't understand what "problem" we're talking about then. i thought it was about sexual abuse and intentional institutional blindness. i don't think the twittersphere or the talking heads on ESPN have anything to do with that. and yeah, i think they're just an annoyance and not actually a problem.

[Lt. Dish]

Come on Dish, that's not part of "the" problem. It's just an annoyance. A bigger part of the problem is so many people desperately trying to absolve paterno of guilt.

Why isn't it? The problem is akin to that which plagues our political discourse. No one talks to each other, and worse yet, no one listens. It's all about tossing salvos without discernment and making pithy or snarky judgments. It's all about stamping labels on others. You're with us or against us. You're crazy or you're spot on. It's my biggest objection to Twitter.

So we've got a spectrum, from people desperately trying to absolve Paterno <-----> people desperately trying to damn him. As for the relativity, I don't care who is making a "larger annoyance" of themselves.

i guess i don't understand what "problem" we're talking about then. i thought it was about sexual abuse and intentional institutional blindness. i don't think the twittersphere or the talking heads on ESPN have anything to do with that. and yeah, i think they're just an annoyance and not actually a problem.

shmenguin, that's fair. I see where you're coming from. And I see that I wasn't clear at delineating the problem to which I was referring and the topic. That's my fault. I've been addressing the sexual abuse and institutional blindness as the critical topics at hand, and the difficulty of engaging (or refusal to engage?) in productive, illuminating discourse as the problem. In that regard, I do see the the Twitterverse, ESPN, and the talking heads as negative contributors. I hope that helps a bit.

[Lt. Dish]

That was an entertaining read.

I don't like arguments to drip with sarcasm to the point that I need a bib to read them, but I do appreciate Mr. Horne's effort.

Mr. Horne is taking Olbermann to task for being part of the discourse problem to which I've been referring.

[shmenguin]

i think the quest to absolve paterno and the university is far more detrimental to productive, illuminating discourse since it takes the real problem and puts it in the back seat behind the NCAA sanctions. it puts it on par with paying players or some other inane nonsense.

i don't have an opinion on the firings, bowl ban, scholarships lost, wins taken away, monetary fine, etc. i don't care about any of that. take away the punishments. whatever. but we have a bunch of people rushing to clear paterno's name, and think that because of another muddy report, he's in the clear. it's gross. and by saying things like he did the absolute minimum so it's all kosher (paraphrasing a bunch of people from the last few pages)...THAT'S the problem.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

What if what you consider "the absolute minimum" is also the "absolute maximum" as defined by the law? Also you are using one source (the Grand Jury report) that says Paterno was told by McQuery that he saw rape, but ignoring other testimony from McQuery that places doubt on that initial testimony being correct.

At first when this saga began, I was at the same spot you are now, but the closer I looked at things I changed my mind. I believe there is more than enough reasons (most of them were given by Kevin Horne in the article C2i posted) that should make the most rational person question the cover up narrative.

I realize there are PSU fans that blindly defend Paterno, but you had Ravens fans blindly defending Ray Rice and Ray Lewis, Pats fans blindly defending Aaron Hernandez, Lakers fans blindly defending Kobe, etc.

That shouldn't change what the facts are, but I'm sure someone will only quote the beginning of this sentence and make a glib comment.

[shmenguin]

What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.

[count2infinity]

Out of curiosity.. if you have no dog in the fight, why are you here trying to convince us Joe Paterno was a terrible person?

[Lt. Dish]

i think the quest to absolve paterno and the university is far more detrimental to productive, illuminating discourse since it takes the real problem and puts it in the back seat behind the NCAA sanctions. it puts it on par with paying players or some other inane nonsense.

i don't have an opinion on the firings, bowl ban, scholarships lost, wins taken away, monetary fine, etc. i don't care about any of that. take away the punishments. whatever. but we have a bunch of people rushing to clear paterno's name, and think that because of another muddy report, he's in the clear. it's gross. and by saying things like he did the absolute minimum so it's all kosher (paraphrasing a bunch of people from the last few pages)...THAT'S the problem.

If those who are rushing to absolve Paterno and the University are doing so without doing their part to examine and accept facts that don't fit their agenda (and to factor them into their arguments) with the same fervor regarding the facts that do, then I think they also are part of the discourse problem I'm describing. But I don't think it's fair to say that they're part of the problem simply because of the stance they're taking. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what I'm inferring, and please tell me if I'm incorrect. Just like those who want Paterno to burn in hell, those pushing for exoneration (whatever that is) also need to provide rational and not just emotionally compelling arguments.

I think the fact that we're even here, that child sexual abuse exists at all, and that so many don't know what it is and how to stop it--because we're not educating about it enough--is all "gross."

Is the conversation (from the last few pages) to which you're referring the one that involves the law and reporting? If so, then, with respect, I don't think you're being entirely fair to your fellow posters here. We were discussing the law and reporting of child sexual abuse and sexual assault as we understand it and, if appropriate, were trained on it. Recognizing that Paterno did the same thing as the law describes (considering that his report was second-hand) isn't saying "it's all kosher," but it points out a pertinent fact that many appear to be ignoring. It also highlights the distinction between what's moral and what's legal and how sometimes you can't have both--codified, at least. The debates as to whether the law and reporting procedure is sufficient, in that it may fall short of the moral views of many, and whether it's right to overstep the legal in order to satisfy the moral, remain.

I said ages ago in this thread that both rabid Paterno supporters are going to have to accept and live with facts (as they come out in the trials) that put Paterno in a negative light, but rabid Paterno vilifiers are also going to have to acknowledge any facts that don't. And each group is going to have to understand the difference between their opinions and objective fact.

I'd like to turn away from Paterno for a bit, not because I want to deflect examination of his role, but because I remain disconcerted that he's too much of the focus of the scandal. I understand why people can't look away from him, but I want to devote more time to discussing how pedophiles can be caught, why they aren't, and I'd like to learn more about the dropped (possibly botched?) 1998 investigation into Sandusky.

[shmenguin]

Out of curiosity.. if you have no dog in the fight, why are you here trying to convince us Joe Paterno was a terrible person?

Because it's obvious and people ignoring reason bothers me.

But I don't want to say "terrible person". His lack of action was despicable. If we can all agree on that, I'll shut up. But this picture being painted of paterno extracting all of his options without any other way to come forward with what he knew seems to be the defense du jour, so that's not happening today.

[columbia]

It's been openly admitted in this thread, but a lot of people still can't seem to accept that "grandPa" wasn't quite the beacon of righteousness, as they thought.
That's a human reaction and I can understand it....but's it not a tenable basis for clear viewing.

[shmenguin]

So it would have been "illegal" to go to the police? He would have been thrown in jail for asking the brain trust at PSU over and over what they were doing to respond?

This legal thing is hogwash. He had limits on what he could control. Not what he could do as a concerned human.

[count2infinity]

shmenguin, what do you think McQuerry told him?

[count2infinity]

If McQuerry told him "I saw sandusky raping a kid" then I'm right there with you, man.

[shmenguin]

I think he told him enough to infer sexual abuse of some nature, yes.

[Lt. Dish]

What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.

And, arguably, to those on the "inside," those on the outside work very hard to create a narrative that persecutes the people they're biased towards. And, to them, it's really frustrating. Paterno happened to be the guy most in control of the whole situation, if their story holds water...

I'm sorry, shmenguin. I'm not trying to be flip, and I certainly don't want to tick you off (not my style or temperament). But it's been going both ways, and I think it does everyone, especially the victims, a disservice. This situation demands more from all of us.

I think there are more in the middle then you think, and they step towards/retreat from either direction related to PSU depending on new information about the subtopics or issues involved in the larger situation. The important thing is to stay proximal to and within eye and ear shot of the victims. You can maneuver like that.

[shmenguin]

The other reason I keep popping in is that, if paterno did enough to get him off the moral hook (like plenty of people are saying), then it makes me very upset that people think that way. If it's my kid in that shower and an adult knows that something happened or even just suspects something happened, it's disgusting that people think that telling your boss about it and walking away is A-OK. It's not enough. You all know it. But the Freeh report got everyone's britches in a twist so we now have truthers who need to go overboard in defending what is, objectively, a moral failure because if they show any crack then they think it will justify the sanctions.

Just step away and admit what's what. C2i, you did that plenty and I appreciate it. SDG never did, so ok. Dish is disappointing to me, to be honest.

[Lt. Dish]

So it would have been "illegal" to go to the police? He would have been thrown in jail for asking the brain trust at PSU over and over what they were doing to respond?

This legal thing is hogwash. He had limits on what he could control. Not what he could do as a concerned human.

Help me out. McQueary, if he saw something, he could've called the cops. If he thinks he heard something, then he reports to his supervisor.

Paterno wouldn't have been able to call the cops because they're not going to take a report on second-hand information. So, he reports to his supervisor.

As for following up, we were addressing this earlier. The idea is that you're not to ask about it in order to maintain confidentiality (your own identity, as well as that of the accused and of the potential victim) and so as not to exert influence or interfere in the investigation. We can talk about whether we think that's morally right.

A serious complicating factor is that McQueary has changed his story a few times. Damn him.

[slappybrown]

What if what you consider "the absolute minimum" is also the "absolute maximum" as defined by the law? Also you are using one source (the Grand Jury report) that says Paterno was told by McQuery that he saw rape, but ignoring other testimony from McQuery that places doubt on that initial testimony being correct.

Q: I’d like to direct your attention to what I believe would be a spring break of 2002, around that time. Do you recall Michael McQueary calling you and asking to have a discussion with you about something that he observed?

Mr. Paterno: I’m not sure of the date, but he did call me on a Saturday morning. He said he had something that he wanted to discuss. I said, come on over to the house. He came over to the house. And as I said, I’m not sure what year it was, but I know it was a Saturday morning and we discussed something he had seen.

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: Did he identify who that older person was?

Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.

This not offered for the truth of the matter asserted -- that is, the veracity of what McQueary saw. McQueary could change his story a million times, and its not particularly relevant. Someone Paterno trusted told him -- by Paterno's own testimony to a grand jury -- Sandusky was fondling a boy in PSU's showers. Where is the follow up in the years after from Paterno (I've been told any follow up relating to "Coach" isn't even Paterno) as Sandusky continues to sexually assault minors? That's why I asked are you disappointed in him. Because I don't think that Paterno should have gone to jail, and there's no doubt that he reported the incident to his supervisor (without getting into what that really means in relation to the power he and Curley respectively wielded, because its irrelevant). That's what the "benefit of hindsight" quote means to me -- knowledge that he could have done more after being told about Sandusky doing this. At the very least, make sure he's not running football camps at PSU satellite campuses as Sandusky continued to do.

Personally, I think Paterno did countless great things in his life. The man was obviously devoted to the school and to the education of young men and women. But you read his own testimony, and to continue on this misguided mission to "clear" his name or "restore his legacy" in the context of child abuse -- which continued after he by his own admission was advised that Sandusky was engaging in appropriate sexual conduct with minors -- is really distasteful IMO.

[shmenguin]

What you don't understand that other people on the outside do is that you work very hard to create a narrative that absolves the people you're biased towards. From someone with no dog in the fight, it's silly but it's also just really really frustrating. Paterno happens to be the most unlucky guy in America if your story holds water. In those situations, it means the guy messed up. The Rube Goldberg bad luck machines don't work that way in real life.

And, arguably, to those on the "inside," those on the outside work very hard to create a narrative that persecutes the people they're biased towards. And, to them, it's really frustrating. Paterno happened to be the guy most in control of the whole situation, if their story holds water...

I'm sorry, shmenguin. I'm not trying to be flip, and I certainly don't want to tick you off (not my style or temperament). But it's been going both ways, and I think it does everyone, especially the victims, a disservice. This situation demands more from all of us.

I think there are more in the middle then you think, and they step towards/retreat from either direction related to PSU depending on new information about the subtopics or issues involved in the larger situation. The important thing is to stay proximal to and within eye and ear shot of the victims. You can maneuver like that.

Paterno wasn't villain #1. I have no bias against anyone. I don't care about the sanctions being enforced. So why is it so blatantly obvious to me that he failed as a human in this situation?

I guess you've seen too many Pitt people in this thread or people with something up their craw about PSU culture in general to think that a casual observer could come in a spit venom like I have. But I think the perspective of the unbiased 3rd party is that paterno did wrong. Mcqueary did worse. If the Freeh report holds water, the guys above him did even worse. But I don't have to include that caveat in every post. And a bunch of numb skull college kids aren't parading around chanting those guys' names either.

[the errey i breathe]

So it would have been "illegal" to go to the police? He would have been thrown in jail for asking the brain trust at PSU over and over what they were doing to respond?

This legal thing is hogwash. He had limits on what he could control. Not what he could do as a concerned human.

Help me out. McQueary, if he saw something, he could've called the cops. If he thinks he heard something, then he reports to his supervisor.

Paterno wouldn't have been able to call the cops because they're not going to take a report on second-hand information. So, he reports to his supervisor.

As for following up, we were addressing this earlier. The idea is that you're not to ask about it in order to maintain confidentiality (your own identity, as well as that of the accused and of the potential victim) and so as not to exert influence or interfere in the investigation. We can talk about whether we think that's morally right.

A serious complicating factor is that McQueary has changed his story a few times. Damn him.

This is actually a huge factor. As someone who is a mandated reporter, making a report based off of second hand knowledge is useless and pretty much never accepted by CPS/DSS. They often will just encourage the reporter to have the person they heard it from make a report.

[shmenguin]

What if what you consider "the absolute minimum" is also the "absolute maximum" as defined by the law? Also you are using one source (the Grand Jury report) that says Paterno was told by McQuery that he saw rape, but ignoring other testimony from McQuery that places doubt on that initial testimony being correct.

Q: I’d like to direct your attention to what I believe would be a spring break of 2002, around that time. Do you recall Michael McQueary calling you and asking to have a discussion with you about something that he observed?

Mr. Paterno: I’m not sure of the date, but he did call me on a Saturday morning. He said he had something that he wanted to discuss. I said, come on over to the house. He came over to the house. And as I said, I’m not sure what year it was, but I know it was a Saturday morning and we discussed something he had seen.

Q: Without getting into any graphic detail, what did Mr. McQueary tell you he had seen and where?

Mr. Paterno: Well, he had seen a person, an older — not an older, but a mature person who was fondling, whatever you might call it — I’m not sure what the term would be — a young boy.

Q: Did he identify who that older person was?

Mr. Paterno: Yes, a man by the name of Jerry Sandusky who had been one of our coaches, was not at the time.

This not offered for the truth of the matter asserted -- that is, the veracity of what McQueary saw. McQueary could change his story a million times, and its not particularly relevant. Someone Paterno trusted told him -- by Paterno's own testimony to a grand jury -- Sandusky was fondling a boy in PSU's showers. Where is the follow up in the years after from Paterno (I've been told any follow up relating to "Coach" isn't even Paterno) as Sandusky continues to sexually assault minors? That's why I asked are you disappointed in him. Because I don't think that Paterno should have gone to jail, and there's no doubt that he reported the incident to his supervisor (without getting into what that really means in relation to the power he and Curley respectively wielded, because its irrelevant). That's what the "benefit of hindsight" quote means to me -- knowledge that he could have done more after being told about Sandusky doing this. At the very least, make sure he's not running football camps at PSU satellite campuses as Sandusky continued to do.

Personally, I think Paterno did countless great things in his life. The man was obviously devoted to the school and to the education of young men and women. But you read his own testimony, and to continue on this misguided mission to "clear" his name or "restore his legacy" in the context of child abuse -- which continued after he by his own admission was advised that Sandusky was engaging in appropriate sexual conduct with minors -- is really distasteful IMO.

Ha...I almost forgot about paterno's plain admission.

That doesn't count though, for some reason.