Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Posnanski: F.C. Lane

My excerpting here is felonious to the Phelon part.

If you have numerous hours/days to kill, I heartily recommend going over to the Baseball Magazine Archives (The wonderful LA84 Foundation has many of the magazines from 1908 to 1920) and just typing in any keyword at all.

I first went over the to those archives because of a story that appeared on Fangraphs a few weeks ago with the nerd-friendly title, “Was wOBA actually invented nearly 100 years ago?” Fangraphs’ author Sam Menzin refers to a story that F.C. Lane wrote in 1916 called “Why the system of batting averages should be changed.”... What I found, however, is a lot greater than that just one story…

Two months later—in May of 1916, Lane’s second batting averages article appeared, and it is even more fascinating than the first. It is called: “An Improved System of Batting Averages.” And it is a point-counterpoint between F.C. Lane and an old sportswriter named William Phelon…

The third F.C. Lane article about batting averages appeared less than a year later—January of 1917—and it is the most complete and involved of them all… Lane and the people at Baseball Magazine had watched and carefully compiled the records of 1,000 hits in games during the 1916 season played by every team (and including one World Series game)... he figured out that:

A single is worth .46 of a run.

A double is worth .79 of a run.

A triple is worth 1.15 of a run

A home run is worth 1.55 of a run.

Pause once more to think about this. He only looked at 1,000 hits in 1916. He came up with a quirky system to figure out how many runs scored. Now, jump ahead 50 years. John Thorn and Pete Palmer wrote “The Hidden Game of Baseball,” an all-time classic. In it, they introduced the Linear Weights system. For it, they used computer simulations and ALL the data available going back to 1901.

And this is what they determined.

A single is worth .46 of a run.

A double is worth .80 of a run

A triple is worth 1.02 of a run

A home run is worth 1.40 of a run

The District Attorney Posted: January 01, 2012 at 09:38 PM | 365 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball geeks, history, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 
   201. Ron J Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4027936)
#197 If there is an actual duty to report to the police then MLB's rules don't override those. That said, I'm not sure that match fixing is criminal misconduct. When the Black Sox were put on trial it was for a conspiracy to defraud. Probably varies by state.

Match fixing is unambiguously criminal in England. Several Pakistani cricketers are going to do time and they weren't even fixing the match outcome (they were allowing their backers to win prop bets. Things like a "no ball" in a specific over)
   202. SoSH U at work Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4027937)
The player doesn't have to go to the police? I'm shocked, shocked.


As much as you want it to validate your opinion, it actually does the opposite. You report a violation to the individual most directly involved in policing that activity. In the case of game fixing, the commissioner of baseball is the top dog, not the police.

If Joe Paterno believed one of his players was taking money from a booster, he wouldn't report it to the police because the police wouldn't care (absent some local statutes that may or not exist in PA). Now the AD, that's his responsbility, so you take it to him.

If someone's diddling kids in your locker room, you take the information to the police.

Simple really.

   203. JPWF1313 Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4027950)
It's not admirable but to be honest I find Paterno's actions less despicable than the PSU admin... (I realize there is an open question if anybody at PSU was higher than Paterno,


Paterno's actions/inaction might be less dispicable than the PSU Admin, but then agains, from everything I've read and heard it may not be so easy to separate the Admin and Joe Pa.

Paterno may not "technically" have authority but it seems like he certainly had de facto authority. What actually happened? Joe Pa may have hard from McQueary then told Curley and Schultz, "take care of it"- but what did Joe Pa mean by that?

From what I've read Curley and Schultz are pretty useless, my guess is their #1 priority was doing what Joe wanted, #2 was protecting the school, #3 was "doing the right thing- i.e., stopping Sandusky, protecting kids etc... So let's say Joe told them, "take care of this"
What do they do, what actually does Joe want? Maybe they're not sure, and too afraid to ask Joe for clarification (doe he want a coverup, does he wanted Sandusky to get strung up buy his neck?)... Banning Sandusky from campus, or at least banning him from bringng kids on campus is the cowardly path of least resistance.

I dunno... Another thing I don't know, did Joe Pa and McQueary ever discuiss this matter again, did eitehr ask anyone what was up when they saw Sandusky walking around on campus later
   204. CrosbyBird Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4027957)
Now I'll engage in the type of speculation Posnanski finds so distasteful. Who speaks that way of a retirement? He retired "voluntarily"? Isn't that assumed, absent some reason not to assume it?

Are you serious? Whenever some terrible news comes out about a former employee, isn't one of the first questions for prior employers something like "was there any hint of this behavior while he was working for you?" When you're being accused of covering up something as serious as child rape, don't you think it's pretty important to establish that there wasn't a known history of sexual misconduct?

I'm one of those people that hates rushing to judgment, but as soon as I heard that this was a "former employee," I started to wonder if his termination was related to some sort of questionable behavior.

Paterno's phrasing suggests either (1) that Sandusky was forced out for some reason, or (2) that there is good reason to believe that Sandusky was forced out but Paterno wants to make it clear that that's false. Either way implies that Paterno knew there was a secret about Sandusky.

Or that there's likely to be kneejerk speculation about Sandusky's "forced" retirement from people like you, and that he wants to set the record straight.

Of course, he can't win here. If he just says Sandusky retired, then people will say "he retired the same way that a Catholic priest relocated" and if he specifies that it was voluntary, people will speculate that he's lying.
   205. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4027970)
Now I'll engage in the type of speculation Posnanski finds so distasteful. Who speaks that way of a retirement? He retired "voluntarily"? Isn't that assumed, absent some reason not to assume it?

Are you serious?


Yes, but thanks for confirming.

The phrasing is odd to me, and I noted that in passing.
   206. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:00 PM (#4027986)
From what I've read Curley and Schultz are pretty useless, my guess is their #1 priority was doing what Joe wanted, #2 was protecting the school, #3 was "doing the right thing- i.e., stopping Sandusky, protecting kids etc... So let's say Joe told them, "take care of this" What do they do, what actually does Joe want? Maybe they're not sure, and too afraid to ask Joe for clarification (doe he want a coverup, does he wanted Sandusky to get strung up buy his neck?)... Banning Sandusky from campus, or at least banning him from bringng kids on campus is the cowardly path of least resistance.

The problem with this is that Curley and Schultz take it to the University President. Which means that, (1)the University President knows- which is an odd way to kick off a cover-up- and (2)presumably, the Pres isn't a meathead jock, so he should have done something. If he knows these allegations are out there, he's going to want - at minimum- a "legitimate" CYA effort so that if this comes up again, he doesn't get destroyed.

The one part of the narrative that doesn't make a lot of sense to me is that once Paterno kicks it to Curley and Schultz, there should be "something that happens" if McCreary's claims as to what he said at the time are true. By the "cover-up narrative" there should have been a white-wash procedure in place to pass this along and give everyone cover. Or at least some effort to make it appear that the charges were addressed. It might be reasonable that Paterno and the football staff don't think about that, but the University President? Counsel for the Second Mile? Those guys- if they were trying to hide something- would (I would think) have insisted on some effort that serves to prevent this precise occurrence from coming to fruition.

I don't have a theory that exonerates anybody, but the one part of the existing story that doesn't quite add up with the facts we currently have is that this is a really inept cover-up. Comically so were it a less serious issue. Given some of the people involved, I have trouble believing (though I won't discount the possibility) these people heard the McCreary story and basically said, "don't worry, this will go away." Particularly so if Sandusky has a history that they are weary of. Something like that isn't going to go away, isn't likely to be an isolated situation even if its the first they've heard of it, and obviously isn't isolated if that's why he lost his job in 98.

This is all guess work, but it seems like there is a basic element to the story we still don't have. It may make the story much worse, but- and this is just a "sense"- there is still something missing I think.
   207. Nasty Nate Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:05 PM (#4027994)
Given some of the people involved, I have trouble believing (though I won't discount the possibility) these people heard the McCreary story and basically said, "don't worry, this will go away." Particularly so if Sandusky has a history that they are weary of. Something like that isn't going to go away, isn't likely to be an isolated situation even if its the first they've heard of it, and obviously isn't isolated if that's why he lost his job in 98.


But didn't it "go away" successfully for 8-9 years?
   208. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4028007)
But didn't it "go away" successfully for 8-9 years?

Sure. And it may have disappeared forever. I just have trouble believing that the University President was banking everything on the hope that this pretty brazen child molester wasn't going to get busted at some point. At which point, there was a good possibility that all this was going to come out.

I'm not stating that such didn't happen, only that it seems strange enough that it did that I want to consider some alternatives. I wish had a good one that didn't make the story much, much worse.
   209. robinred Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4028010)
really inept cover-up.


This has bothered me as well, not only from the POV of the UP, but also from Paterno's. Even if you go cynical on Paterno
--he is a just a phony, sanctimonious old fart who was trying to keep his overblown rep intact--ISTM even in that case he should be saying, "Look, we need to get out front on this thing before it goes nuclear on us, for the uni and the program."

The other issue I have from this angle is that Sandusky by all accounts still had the run of the football facilities (although he was told not to, supposedly) and was accorded the status of "professor emeritus." I could sort of see Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier saying to themselves, "Not on us" if Sandusky had retired to Texas or California or something. But with Second Mile still visible, with Sandusky still in State College, still around the buildings, and McQueary still on the staff...they just let it sit.

I mean, from their POV in 2002, either Sandusky is a child molester or McQueary is dangerously unstable and/or a liar. And they just let it sit.
   210. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:21 PM (#4028022)
If someone's diddling kids in your locker room, you take the information to the police.


Yes. Under what principles are people operating under that anything short of this is tolerated? I've not gotten on Paterno for going to Curley instead of to the authorities as a first step (or in conjunction with going to the authorities), but even that was rather absurd.

If McQueary had reported to Paterno that he saw Sandusky stab a child, would it have been acceptable for Paterno to have called Curley first? Not at all. Is "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature" to a child so low in concern that people think calling Curley was sufficient?

But to call Curley is one thing; to not make sure that the report went to the authorities is another. Where is the evidence that Paterno cared a damn about what had happened to this child, or what was still happening to the child, or what had happened or might happen to other children?

I really have to wonder why people have taken leave of their senses here.
   211. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4028030)
really inept cover-up.


If we're speculating, I wouldn't (and haven't) used the term "cover-up." I think a decision was made by some combination of Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier to simply handle it in-house. Because that's ultimately what happened. They "handled" it in-house.

EDIT: When you "cover something up," you don't go around telling other people, such as the head of Second Mile, etc. (unless he was already aware of what the problem was). I just think they were trying to handle it themselves while keeping it from boiling over.
   212. Something Other Posted: January 03, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4028061)
#168, Athletic Director. Sheesh, Something Other; I have never followed college sports, but even I know that :-)
Yeah, what I don't know about college football is pretty sad.

Thanks for the info, y'all.

So, lessee... I know it's been mentioned but the question that leaps--absolutely leaps--to mind is, why on earth was Paterno reporting what he knew to the Athletic Director? That's not the person to whom you report a claim of abuse or molestation. Why isn't Paterno going directly to the police?

I can think of one, and only one extenuating circumstance. That Paterno is deeply concerned that the simple fact of an allegation will destroy someone's life, literally destroy it. I can see doing some very, very diligent investigating--IMMEDIATELY--including going to the accused and telling him in no uncertain terms that he's been accused and that Paterno wants to know NOW what the accused's version is. Even going this route, though, Paterno had an obligation to children known and unknown to follow this through to the bitter end, either satisfying himself absolutely that the charge was baseless, or if he can't do that, reporting it to the police and let the law take its grinding course.

That may sound too lenient, but I can think of situations where, say, a close friend, someone I knew well, is accused of something I am certain or am all but certain is false. I would be extremely reluctant to START by going to the authorities, particularly if I knew the accuser to be unreliable, or had an axe to grind, and if the accusation was of the kind that routinely ruins lives even if the accused turns out to be innocent.

That said, I CANNOT see reporting this to the Athletic Director and not following up. That's... unconscionable. I can't think of another word right now. It is conscience-less. It is the kind of thing one does to cover one's ass and hope the matter goes away quietly.
   213. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4028115)
I think a decision was made by some combination of Paterno/Curley/Schultz/Spanier to simply handle it in-house. Because that's ultimately what happened. They "handled" it in-house.

For the University President to have arrived at that decision I would think he would already be covering it up. He has (speculating here) several duties that preclude him from simply deciding to do such without passing the information along.

In any case, an "in-house" handling still requires some actual handling. In this case, there's basically nothing. And because there was no process- faux or otherwise, and certainly no formal process that looked legitimate- they essentially gave McCreary the power to destroy all of them. Had they decided to handle it in-house, and then put together a token or fraudulent investigation, all of them have cover if McCreary starts talking or Sandusky gets caught and everything comes out.

The McCreary story is incredible. I would think it leads to "lets turn Sandusky in" or "oh ####, we need to cover this up." But instead, it leads to almost nothing. I just don't see how that makes sense.
   214. Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4028141)
Who speaks that way of a retirement? He retired "voluntarily"? Isn't that assumed, absent some reason not to assume it?



The phrasing is odd to me, and I noted that in passing.


I noted the oddness as well, and not to get into the treacherous business of defending Paterno, but the phrasing seems less odd when you consider that the entire context of the conversation is an aspersion on Sandusky. Some people have an ingrained tendency to remain "fair" or at least polite even when confronting (or avoiding confronting) despicable acts. Not unrelated to the complaints about Posnanski, now that I think about it. More relevantly, Paterno was talking about a high-level college football coach. In most careers, voluntary retirement is the norm, but I dare say that's not true in his line of work.
   215. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4028144)
I've lost a lot of respect for Posnanski. It's bad enough he publicly defended Paterno and won't retract it - but then he goes and kills the comments section of his website. It's the rough equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and singing "la, la, la" and it really turns me off. Abruptly cutting off contact with all his "Brilliant Readers," even if it was mostly symbolic contact, makes me think his persona was never quite as genuine as I once believed.

   216. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4028150)
Actually, Donde, #214, you're right that they (whoever the buck stopped with once Paterno at least technically reported it up the chain, be it Schulz, Curley, or Spanier -- "the person in charge of the school or institution") had a legal obligation to report the matter to state authorities, and so since that wasn't done, perhaps a fair conclusion is that they either (1) tried to cover it up, or (2) ALL of these people in high positions at this school didn't know the mandatory reporting law... which I find to be not believable.

If this was a "cover-up," it was a very odd one. I frankly don't know what the F was going through their heads. They had to know of the mandatory reporting law, but they acted as though it was ok to just deal with it themselves. And it's not like they really investigated the situation. If the grand jury report is accurate, they basically just (1) spoke to McQueary, (2) took Sandusky's locker room keys away, (3) told Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the campus or into the facilities (though there's no indication they actually enforced this), and (4) reported the incident to Jack Raykovitz, the Executive Director of Second Mile. To our knowledge (and perhaps subsequent facts will show differently, though you'd think that at least one of Paterno/Spanier/Schultz/Curley would have noted this in their testimony if it had occurred), no attempt was ever made by them to find the child. I find that last part to be unreal.

   217. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: January 03, 2012 at 06:59 PM (#4028156)
They had to know of the mandatory reporting law, but they acted as though it was ok to just deal with it themselves.

Why do you think this? I certainly am not aware of whether there is a mandatory reporting law in my state. Are you saying that they must have known because of their positions?
   218. robinred Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4028161)
@ 216

Poz does not strike me as a guy who has much stomach for nastiness/incivility, and he is obviously aware enough to know that there is, shall we say, a bit of that on the internet, and that he himself, probably for the first time, was/is going to be on the receiving end of some high-volume anger and insults. Not only that, but here and elsehwere, including his web site, Poz had been one of the most consistently complimented (excessively in my view) and praised figures in the media. Emails like Ray's--much less the ones calling Poz names etc.--were probably new to him.

Not endorsing his making the call to shut the comments down, but I found it entirely in keeping with Poz's persona.

   219. robinred Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4028163)
The McCreary story is incredible. I would think it leads to "lets turn Sandusky in" or "oh ####, we need to cover this up." But instead, it leads to almost nothing. I just don't see how that makes sense.


Exactly, like I said. It could also lead to, "McQueary is a dangerous nut job, and we need to get him some help or get rid of him", if you don't believe him.

Instead, they kept McQ on staff--which would indicate they believed him--but did not take the story to the cops.
   220. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4028171)
Are you saying that they must have known because of their positions?

At the very least, I would think that the UP would be obligated, by his duties to the University, to find out precisely what the relevant legal duties were. And then, of course, to see that those legal duties were followed.

The UP's obligation is to protect the University and to do so, in part, by insuring that the University is behaving properly. To handle those tasks competently, the UP would have had to look into this (at the absolute least) once he found out that Sandusky was being punished and what the nature of that punishment was.
   221. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4028172)
They had to know of the mandatory reporting law, but they acted as though it was ok to just deal with it themselves.

Why do you think this? I certainly am not aware of whether there is a mandatory reporting law in my state. Are you saying that they must have known because of their positions?


I am absolutely saying that they must have known because of their positions. I don't expect a layperson to know the law (*), but these were people who had spent at least large swathes of their careers in education.

(*) I do expect a layperson to immediately understand that the matter needs to go to police, but that is just a "because it makes sense to any decent human being" thing, not a "because it's the law" thing.
   222. Topher Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4028173)
I don't think it's all that difficult to figure out why there was a "cover-up" or handled "in-house" or whatever phrase you want to use.

1. Only McQueary witnessed the event and frankly I have no idea what he actually saw and what he told people he saw. (I suspect rape was witnessed but think perhaps he was cut off before going into details when reporting it. That's just my take and I only point it out for my perspective on things.) Regardless, something bad was witnessed in the showers for certain. Does it matter how bad? Perhaps not but for some folks it would matter.

Look at the Bill Conlin situation. Folks just go into a state of denial on this topic and some know something if off but don't know just how much (and refuse to think about it since closing one's eyes is easier) and there were at least a couple of people who confronted him but never bothered to get the authorities involved and were pretty sure that Conlin's behavior had stopped after the confrontation. It wouldn't surprise me if a similar situation took place at PSU and folks were either in denial about what had actually happened and/or that it was still possibly continuing. That seems stupid from a distance but how many abuse scandals do we have to see unravel until we realize that this is how folks behave when they are actually confronted directly with the issue.

2. There was an awful lot to lose with this going public. I think the facts speak for themselves on this one. Even if PSU would not have been at risk had it been immediately reported, The Second Mile would be for certain. That puts at risk the 100,000+ kids that benefited from the charity. I'm fortunate to not have any life experience that compares to this but I know I've kept quiet on some things that should be reported because I felt the consequence of reporting wasn't worth it. Every single one of us has or risked being the snitch throughout school. Now child rape is leaps and bounds beyond this and we all draw our lines someplace. But if one isn't for "certain" what happened and believes "he's stopped" and realizes what comes crashing down if it goes public, well one keeps quiet and deals with it in house.


I wouldn't be at all surprised for one (or all) of McQuery/Paterno/Curley to have been told that he had his keys taken away from him and that he couldn't bring keys in the building and have walked away thinking -- or at least wanting to believe -- that the situation had been investigated, there was nothing really to be proven, and that "precautionary" steps had been taken but no real crime was committed.

It's hopelessly naive but when one's wishes for self-interest, not wanting to think of the true evils of somebody you have known for years, and knowing just how bad foundations would be crumbled if the "truth" were to come out, and you end up with what happened at PSU ... or every other big sex scandal in recent memory.
   223. robinred Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4028181)
@223

You might be right, but it is very hard for me to relate to that. First, there is the human level, as Ray points out. This wasn't a recruiting violation, or even Sandusky with a 21-year-old. Second, organizationally/self-interest wise, it seems that the risk of later exposure (by Sandusky getting busted or McQ breaking down/talking) would outweigh the risks of reporting it.

McQ was just a grad assistant at the time, but he is a former PSU QB--part of the "We Are Penn State" stuff, who is reporting the incident.

So, looking at it either in basic moral/ethical terms, or in terms of calculated self-interest, I don't get it.
   224. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:42 PM (#4028194)
At the very least, I would think that the UP would be obligated, by his duties to the University, to find out precisely what the relevant legal duties were. And then, of course, to see that those legal duties were followed.

The UP's obligation is to protect the University and to do so, in part, by insuring that the University is behaving properly. To handle those tasks competently, the UP would have had to look into this (at the absolute least) once he found out that Sandusky was being punished and what the nature of that punishment was.


Spanier's testimony is that he didn't know it was sexual in nature.

From the GJ report:

"[Spanier] testified that Curley and Shultz came to him in 2002 to report an incident with Jerry Sandusky that made a member of Curley's staff "uncomfortable." Spanier described it as "Jerry Sandusky in the football building locker area in the shower with a younger child and that they were horsing around in the shower. Spanier testified that even in April, 2011, he did not know the identify of the staff member who had reported the behavior. Spanier denied that it was reported to him as an incident that was sexual in nature and acknowledged that Curley and Schultz had not indicated any plan to report the matter to any law enforcement authority, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare or any appropriate county child protective services agency. Spanier also denied being aware of a 1998 University Police investigation of Sandusky for incidents with children in football building showers."


Of course, that doesn't really fit, since Spanier also "testified to his approval of the approach taken by Curley." It's not specific what "approach" Spanier testified to approving, but the question I have is, once Spanier learns that there a need for an "approach" -- and approves it, no less -- did he not ask exactly what in the hell is supposed to have occurred? Even Spanier's testimony that it was "Jerry Sandusky in the football building locker area in the shower with a younger child and that they were horsing around in the shower" screams out for further inquiry. Did this university president not demand to know exactly what was alleged to have occurred? What was going through these peoples' minds?

Spanier's testimony doesn't fit. A 60 year old man "horsing around" in the shower with a young boy to make a staff member "uncomfortable" is not "sexual in nature"?
   225. Topher Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:47 PM (#4028200)
@224

Hard for me to relate to that too. But given that this is what happens in abuse scandals again and again, it seems to me that when one does get put front and center and has a decision to make, the one that wins out most of the time is the cowardly decision and/or the one that is essentially putting one's hands over the ears and screaming, "LA, LA, LA -- I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!"

Maybe I missed it being revealed, but I don't know who took the keys away from Sandusky and told him to no longer brings kids on campus. What conclusion that person came to, I just don't know. But I assume that decision was made at a very high level. For everybody else below that level on the food chain -- including Paterno, since it allows him to pull wool over his eys -- the message would have been that Sandusky was investigated but that there really wasn't anything that should have gone to the authorities, otherwise it would have.

If you are McQuery, do you speak up? Knowing that your superiors have white-washed the issue and that speaking up essentially kills your career because no program is going to hire an assistant who takes things outside the lockerroom?

I'd love to think that I'd have one heck of a strong spine if put in that situation and would do what is moral, right, and just but a lot of folks seem to fail the test when it is put to them.
   226. ray james Posted: January 03, 2012 at 07:54 PM (#4028203)
Well, one has to remember where Paterno was in 2002. He was 76 yrs old and had just finished back-to-back seasons of 5-7 and 5-6, with no bowl appearances. There were very loud rumblings around the state, and in the national press, that he was no longer the coach he had been and perhaps he should step down and let a younger, more vital man take over.

If a scandal like this reached the press, it might have provided the negative leverage to push Paterno out. From everything I know about him, and from everything he has said and has done, he was intent upon dying with his boots on. You will note he had to be fired rather than quit out of a sense of honor and integrity and an admission of his undeniable failure to behave as any responsible adult would have.

The delay in contacting Curley, and then forgetting about the whole thing after it was never acted upon, is consistent with the actions of a man who's raison d'etre appears to be holding on to his sinecure until they pry it from his cold, dead fingers.

That would explain everything: his delay in telling the AD (he needed time to consider all the angles to best control the process), his not following up (he didn't want any scandal to sully his image and stir up the retirement talk again), his not going back to McQueary to get the full story (he needed plausible deniability if it ever leaked out), his failing to reach out to the families of the victims, his failure to confront Sandusky (fear of blackmail if Paterno knew of previous unreported incidents?).
   227. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4028210)
If you are McQuery, do you speak up? Knowing that your superiors have white-washed the issue and that speaking up essentially kills your career because no program is going to hire an assistant who takes things outside the lockerroom?


I've not killed McQueary for not stepping in to break up the rape, as he really should have done; I'm trying to cut him some slack for wandering into a shocking situation and reacting poorly.

But I have no sympathy for any excuse that McQueary needed to worry about saving his career. What "career"? He was a graduate assistant at the time, and later moved to an assistant coach or receivers coach. Whoop dee doo. There are scads of those jobs across the country, especially for a former college quarterback of some note. The idea that McQueary's "career" was a valid excuse for not blowing the lid off of this thing as soon as he realized the so-called Educators above him weren't actually taking any real action themselves is ludicrous.

As is the idea that speaking up to stop child rape would essentially kill his career because no program would hire an assistant who takes child rape outside the lockerroom. That is absurd, and even if it _were_ true, McQueary should stay away from people like that, not be eager to get into their employ. So I cut him no slack for worrying about that either, from any angle.

And I don't think the school would have gotten away with firing McQueary after this thing went public. You'll note that even now he's been placed on leave, not fired.
   228. robinred Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4028212)
If you are McQuery, do you speak up? Knowing that your superiors have white-washed the issue and that speaking up essentially kills your career because no program is going to hire an assistant who takes things outside the lockerroom?


I hope I would speak up, but again, I was looking at it institutionally.

But even with McQ, same thing. You'd hope his conscience bothered him, but even if it didn't, I would think he is thinking, "If this gets out some day..."

OTOH, I can see McQ, being a product of that environment, putting his trust unequivocally in Paterno. Not saying he should have but saying I could see why, looking at who he is, he did.
   229. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:08 PM (#4028213)
You'll note that even now he's been placed on leave, not fired.


And he's on leave because he didn't do the right thing, not because he spoke up at all.

   230. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4028216)
once Spanier learns that there a need for an "approach" -- and approves it, no less -- did he not ask exactly what in the hell is supposed to have occurred?

Exactly. There is no current explanation for how Spanier behaves. The current facts make his conduct completely bizarre.

I appreciate the points in 223 and 226 and actually agree with most of them, particularly the Conlin matter as illustrative, but the big difference here is that you have legal duties and professional obligations that are implicated. In short, you have people's livelihoods in play. And the conduct seems completely out of line with that. It could be that the desire to "hope this just goes away" is so strong that people risk their own financial security in the process (the Conlin matter shows signs of this) but I still have trouble accepting that as the likely explanation.
   231. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:29 PM (#4028224)
The delay in contacting Curley, and then forgetting about the whole thing after it was never acted upon, is consistent with the actions of a man who's raison d'etre appears to be holding on to his sinecure until they pry it from his cold, dead fingers.

I don't see how that works. If you have a sinister Paterno who is bent on keeping his job, he throws his arm around McCreary, reminds him of the greatness of Penn State, explains to him about Uncle Jerry, and then explains to him the bad things that happen when you talk too much. And McCreary keeps his mouth shut from that day forward. You, being Paterno, certainly don't have McCreary tell other people if you want to keep this quiet.

The other problem with that narrative, and, assuming such is actually true, one of the odder parts of the story generally, is that if you assume Joe Pa is desperately worried about winning football games, to the point where he covers up these types of crimes, you would assume he also starts sanctioning the type of "cheating" we expect from college football coaches. But, to date, we don't find any of that. Accordingly, we have the absurd situation where a coach will cover up molestations for the program, but he won't encourage a booster to toss a kid a few hundred dollar bills in order to help him reconsider ol Penn State. If you have a football coach who will cover up serious sexual assaults, you would think a few favorable car leases would show up too. It doesn't appear we have those types of things going on either.
   232. Topher Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4028225)
Zero sympathy either. Not at all trying to defend the behavior. But I'm not surprised by it. You are correct about questioning his career but I am guessing he wasn't self-aware enough to do so.

I do think you are a bit naive about it not killing his career. Probably more than any other sport (hockey, maybe?), football has a culture that keeps things within the lockerroom. Go ahead and report it to coach, but if he doesn't do anything about it, you keep your mouth shut and go back to being a good foot soldier.

Not much is worse than child rape, but murder is. Abar Rouse still can't get a coaching job after "selling out" Dave Bliss (Baylor basketball) for covering up Patrick Dennehy's murder. Bliss can get a job. Rouse can't.
   233. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:35 PM (#4028228)
I do think you are a bit naive about it not killing his career. Probably more than any other sport (hockey, maybe?), football has a culture that keeps things within the lockerroom. Go ahead and report it to coach, but if he doesn't do anything about it, you keep your mouth shut and go back to being a good foot soldier.


Indeed, I don't agree that the culture is to cover up "things" that include child rape.
   234. ray james Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:42 PM (#4028235)
And McCreary keeps his mouth shut from that day forward. You, being Paterno, certainly don't have McCreary tell other people if you want to keep this quiet.


That approach was too risky. He would have been putting his trust in a 28 yr old young man whose future was all ahead of him and had options. The guys he decided to work with had as much to lose as he did.

   235. ray james Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:47 PM (#4028239)
Indeed, I don't agree that the culture is to cover up "things" that include child rape.


Even if that was the culture, then that was a culture that had to change and Paterno, being the boss, should have been the one to begin changing it. That he didn't his is perhaps his biggest failure in life and essentially wipes out all the good deeds he's ever done.

It's really sad when someone fails so epically that he completely abolishes the legacy he's spent a lifetime constructing.
   236. CrosbyBird Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4028243)
Yes. Under what principles are people operating under that anything short of this is tolerated? I've not gotten on Paterno for going to Curley instead of to the authorities as a first step (or in conjunction with going to the authorities), but even that was rather absurd.

My company's official policy is to report any non-imminent incidents to our legal team prior to any external authority. Speaking to the police about anything that happened on company-owned property prior to clearing it with legal is almost certainly grounds for termination. It is also a great way to make serious enemies in management; even if you are not fired because of whistle-blower protection, your career is over.

It is possible for someone to make a false allegation, even for something as terrible as this, and once the police are involved, there's no going back. Reputations are destroyed even if there is no showing of guilt. I don't have any problem with an organization doing an internal investigation to verify if something this serious really happened before calling the police. The real problem with Penn State's reaction is that the authorities were never contacted at all.

I really have to wonder why people have taken leave of their senses here.

It's funny, because I feel the same way. Among the cast of characters in this story, Paterno is pretty low on the ladder of evil. If he's worthy of "utter contempt," we don't have words to describe what Sandusky is. Once again, what's after 11 on your dial?
   237. Greg K Posted: January 03, 2012 at 08:58 PM (#4028244)
A training ground for young men. Uh-huh. Who was training the trainer?

I don't know, the Coast Guard?
   238. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:23 PM (#4028261)
As a Penn State faculty member and 20 year resident of State College, I've hesitated jumping into any of this, but let me clear up a few things:

1. McQueary does indicate in his testimony that he did ask questions about Sandusky's continued presence around the building, although it appears to be a rather wishy-washy effort. He also indicates that Paterno asked him a few times about whether he was OK, in reference to what he saw. But, that's about all the followup that seems to have happened so far. Perhaps more will come out later, but certainly not much so far.

2. On mandatory reporting, Ray, you have to recall that these events occurred almost a decade ago. Although Curley and Schultz have been charged with failure to report, PA law at that time only required reporting if an individual came into direct contact with a child under their care. I've talked to many lawyers, and not a single one familiar with PA law expects that charge to survive. Furthermore, there is little to no training about this law in higher education. I'm not excusing their behavior at all, since I would certainly expect that even if you weren't aware of this law, you'd report an incident like this.

3. McQueary is not just a PSU QB, but a local kid who, like many local kids, lived and died with PSU football. Local star at State College High School, etc. Although not confirmed, placing him on admin leave is believed to be a result of whistleblower laws, as well as threats made (not clear whether these were from people who blamed him for not stepping in or from PSU fans who blame him for the events). It has nothing to do with doing or not doing the right thing.

4. More than a few lawyers have said to me that McQueary could be destroyed on cross. His testimony already makes it clear that he downplayed what he saw to Paterno, leading to the possibility that he may have further waffled with Schultz and Curley. In addition, a third person, Jon Dranov, heard his report of the events on the night they happened. Dranov is a local physician, and the Harrisburg reporter who broke this story has reported that Dranov's testimony includes the information that he asked McQueary three times whether he was sure that what he saw was sexual, and McQueary reportedly answered "no". While there is plenty of other evidence against Sandusky, the critical aspect of the perjury charge for Curley and Schultz depends on what McQueary told them. Of course, Schultz and Curley appear to differ on that, too, so only time will tell the rest of that story. Again, I'm not excusing any behavior there, since I would hope that any mention of horsing around, something inappropriate or whatever terms would use would result in a much more significant questioning, investigation, and action.
   239. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:25 PM (#4028265)
It's funny, because I feel the same way. Among the cast of characters in this story, Paterno is pretty low on the ladder of evil. If he's worthy of "utter contempt," we don't have words to describe what Sandusky is. Once again, what's after 11 on your dial?


Yep. If Poz should be destroyed for his views on Paterno, this conversation should, in theory, have become everyone condemning each other for not personally going down to Penn and attempting to murder Sandusky.

There's some really inconsistent moralizing going on here.



   240. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:34 PM (#4028275)
There's some really inconsistent moralizing going on here.


When anyone excuses or downplays the actions of Curley, Schultz, McQuery or, obviously Sandusky, they'll be guilty of such a charge. But where each of those individuals rests on the scale of evil has absolutely no bearing on a) Paterno's culpability and b) Poz's actions.

   241. Lassus Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4028285)
Yep. If Poz should be destroyed for his views on Paterno, this conversation should, in theory, have become everyone condemning each other for not personally going down to Penn and attempting to murder Sandusky. There's some really inconsistent moralizing going on here.

Yes, paint everyone angry with Paterno and annoyed at Poz as Esoteric and Gaelan, that makes plenty of sense.
   242. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 03, 2012 at 09:50 PM (#4028286)
   243. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: January 03, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4028331)
I find it bizarre that so many people think that there's no room in this world for a subtle, multilayered portrayal of Joe Paterno

I think you're misreading criticism of how Paterno handled this as a denial that Paterno ever did anything of worth. I fully imagine such a book could be written - it ought to now be more compelling than before, frankly.

[...or that Poz is somehow incapable or unwilling to write such a book.]

I'm not sure that he's the best man for the job, no. Granted, I don't think he'd've been my pick before all this went down either (for reasons cited by vi's 119, which I pretty much agree with) - this is not to say that I don't like him (I just saw an old quote of mine where I called him possibly the best sportswriter in America - a position I still hold), just that he was a suboptimal choice for this task. Before.

Now? Well, with the access and timing he's had - I'd certainly expect him to still write one (and don't blame him for doing so). I hope his position on this becomes one I find more tenable. I'm not sure that it will - time will tell.

Incidentally, I was initially sympathetic to Pos's "let's withhold judgment 'til we know more" stance ... until he kept talking.

Still like the guy in general (what I know of him, we're all just avatars to some extent online), would still buy him the beverage of his choice if I ever bumped into him. He's just way out of line here. (I'm setting aside for now how it benefits or costs him career-wise to take this stance - not sure how to process that just yet.)

***

Separately, I think that a lot of the "pro-Pos/Paterno" posts here are more hyperbolic than the non-Gaelan/Eso anti-posts. Which is unexpected.
   244. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:18 AM (#4028364)
4. More than a few lawyers have said to me that McQueary could be destroyed on cross. His testimony already makes it clear that he downplayed what he saw to Paterno, leading to the possibility that he may have further waffled with Schultz and Curley.


Yes, McQueary does say in his preliminary hearing testimony (December 16th) that he did not use extremely graphic words in relaying his account to Paterno, but that he made sure he conveyed to Paterno that he saw Sandusky and the boy (quoting now from McQueary's preliminary hearing testimony) "in the shower," that it was "way over the lines [sic]," and "extremely sexual in nature." He said he would have described for Paterno "the rough positioning" "but not in very much detail." He said he would never have used the word "sodomy" or the words "anal intercourse."

So he is clear that he conveyed to Paterno basically that Sandusky was sexually abusing the child, though he doesn't use the graphic words to describe it. So I can believe that Paterno may not have understood specifically that anal rape was occurring, but I don't see how that changes my assessment of Paterno (not that you were arguing that it should - I realize you were making a different point) because Paterno still understood that McQueary was a witness to child sex abuse. As Paterno admitted.

So McQueary testified that he did try to give Paterno as Walt Disney a version as possible, I agree.

McQueary then testified that he was more specific with Shultz and Curley without using the "graphic" words. McQueary testified that he told both of them that "I saw Jerry in the showers with a young boy and it was extremely sexual and it was over the lines and it was wrong." He testified that he would have told them about the positioning (Sandusky "in very close proximity behind a young boy with his arms wrapped around him") and about "the slapping sounds" "and that it was in the shower and they were naked." He further testified that he "would not have used some of the words you mentioned previously, but I would have described that it was extremely sexual and that I thought that some kind of intercourse was going on."

So I can agree with your basic description that he downplayed what he saw to Paterno.
   245. base ball chick Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:46 AM (#4028378)
very interesting post by VI at 119

i think poz is the kind of guy who really DOES want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. and he wants to be likeable too - even barry lamar, who is not exactly the sportswriter's best friend, liked him and talked to him more than a few times.

maybe this is his personal weakness. i mean, the wanting to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. getting too caught up in emotions, local atmosphere. maybe he has to talk himself into believing in whoever he writes about.

and maybe, when you really think highly of someone and you like them, you can't NOT disbelieve the bad and give them the benefit of the doubt. like, say, me and how i feel about poz and his writing. i can't just yet bring myself to believe he could shrug off raped children to praise some football coach - the man who would be God.

poz also just might could be in a very bad situation. let's suppose he's received a big wad of $$$ already for the sunshine book on joe the god. suppose he has been told that he either writes the sunshine book he was hired to write or he's gotta give back all that $$$ and maybe he doesn't have it to give back, or maybe he and his wife were gonna use it to send their daughters to college or anything. maybe he can't bring himself to say anything right now because he's having to make a choice that is either bad for his family or something against his moral code.

but youneverknow - the poz/paterno story is not over. perhaps we might could consider waiting to close the book on poz when we're not at the end.

i don't have any trouble NOW understanding what mcqueary did - i mean, tell his dad and not call the cops - given who he was and where he was raised and the rapist being sandusky. i'm not even surprised about him being afraid/reluctant to talk flat out about what he saw. it's easy for us - we're all strangers to sandusky and we aren't a "happy" valley resident. mcqueary didn't even really have the option of making an anonymous call to the cops because sandusky saw him. mcqueary acted like a child, which is probably what he emotionally was, growing up there in those conditions.

i also am looking at the coverup. it doewsn't look funny to me at all. say nothing, do nothing. paterno knows who mcqueary is, knows his father. mcqueary isn't gonna go telling the DA - especially seeing as how the previous one who was gonna do some indicting, had got hisself murdered by persons unknown. paterno was Godly, wasn't nobody gonna oppose Him. He figured it would go away. the raped kid was a nobody, some piece of crap kid of some poor single mother who wasn't gonna stand down joe the God. not there. all the other problems had somehow just gone away, why wouldn't they contineu to just go away?

joe wasn't about to give up his power and his God-like status, let's be real here. for some nobody kid?

as for the - is sandusky a rapist? question, all i can say is that a 60+ year old man was alone naked in a shower with a naked 10 year old boy at night. sandusky himself admits that he was alone in the shower with a naked 10 year old boy, so this is not mcqueary inventing it. there is NO way this was not sexual. NO way. the fact that mcqueary had trouble talking about it, in my opinion, means like zero.

and, by the way, am not surprised about all the guys here who say that their company says that they have to tell HR/legal counsel and NOT THE COPS about, uh, stuff. would any of all YALL go back to HR and follow up on it, see if the cops were called, see what happened, especially if cops didn't come around to talk to you? would YOU risk your jobs, careers, for someone you didn't even know, reporting someone you are, in reality, subordinate to? if it was made more than clear to you that things were being covered up, would YOU sacrifice YOUR lives?

and these days, it is pretty damm tough to make an anonymous call - you have to have a disposable cell phone and they can usually find out who bought it. and there are cameras everywhere near the few pay phones that are left...
   246. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4028385)
i think poz is the kind of guy who really DOES want to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.


The problem with this is that Posnanski was giving Paterno the benefit where there was no doubt.
   247. base ball chick Posted: January 04, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4028396)
ray

he did, at first, but then, as he says in his own blog, he had second thoughts. sometimes, you don't think/talk clearly when you have just gotten overwhelming bad news.

i'm hoping he's having 3rd and 4th thoughts.

and that he will write The Book on paterno - all the bad with the "good." joe paterno is like the fisherman's wife - remember - she kept asking the fish for more and more and finally when she demanded to be God, she was returned to her original horrid condition. when a person really starts thinking they are God, they are due for a long fall downwards. you know what i mean...

   248. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 02:33 AM (#4028410)
ray

he did, at first, but then, as he says in his own blog, he had second thoughts. sometimes, you don't think/talk clearly when you have just gotten overwhelming bad news.

i'm hoping he's having 3rd and 4th thoughts.

and that he will write The Book on paterno -


At this point I don't care what Posnanski's thoughts on the matter are, or what his book will look like. I don't need to look to Posnanski for guidance on this issue; he's proven that he's incapable of offering any intelligent thought on the matter at all. I don't care whether he suddenly stops telling lies about the matter. He has nothing to add, nothing to say, nothing of value to give.

I don't know why anyone would still be interested in what he has to say about this. What is the rationale there? "Mr. Posnanski, Oh Great One, your response to this issue was filled with lies and half-truths designed to mislead people and defend the indefensible - but please, please, let me know what else you have to say." Sorry, but that's not for me. If others get something out of that, more power to them. I don't care whether he suddenly decides to start being honest about the issue. I don't care whether he knows more about baseball analysis than Dan Shaughnessy. That's utterly irrelevant. His comments on this situation have been worse than worthless.

   249. Lassus Posted: January 04, 2012 at 07:25 AM (#4028439)
I don't need to look to Posnanski for guidance on this issue; he's proven that he's incapable of offering any intelligent thought on the matter at all.

Ray, unlike you, people make mistakes, learn from them, and grow. Not everyone is infallible and fully-formed at birth as a perfect being such as yourself.
   250. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4028489)
I think the trial outcome (if the perjury charges do come to trial and we ultimately get more information on the details of the conversations) is ultimately going to hinge on how the jury reconciles the testimony given to the grand jury, in the prelim, and at the trial by McQ, his father, Dranov, Paterno, Schultz and Curley. McQ and his father have both indicated that they felt Mike conveyed that the contact was sexual and of a serious nature, although he was not certain he saw rape. Dranov's reported testimony, suggests that Mike was not certain it was even sexual. It's hard to believe that a physician would counsel going to your coach, and not the authorities, if he was told this was a "severe sexual" contact, as Mike now says.

The lawyers I've spoken with wonder how much Mike's recollection is colored by the efforts of the AG, especially since Tom Corbett's role in this is less than shining. The information on Victim 1 came to light when Corbett was AG, however, he assigned just a single investigator to the case, continued to court political donations from leading figures in the Second Mile charity for his governor campaign, and even approved government grants to Second Mile after the grand jury was convened and hearing testimony. A negative interpretation of his behavior would suggest that he slow-mo'd the investigation to advance his own political ambitions. Days after the election, the new AG created a much larger investigative force, and significantly ramped up the investigation. The summary of the grand jury report, which cast a much more aggressive version of McQueary's testimony as is often the case in these presentments to color public opinion, was leaked and no investigation on how or who leaked it has been done. The AG, governor, and the McQuearys may have an interest in now overstating what it was Mike actually said at the time.

In addition to the conflict with Dranov's testimony, you have Paterno, Curley and Schultz. Paterno is 85 years old, has cancer and a broken hip, and has had trouble remembering current players' names for years, among other things. While his testimony supports the McQueary claims that it was a sexual contact, he is likely to be a less than ideal witness on cross, if he even makes it there. Curley and Schultz conflict in their testimony. I should look back at the testimony from the prelim, but from memory Schultz indicates that it was closer to what McQueary says, although even he says it was more of the nature of genital contact occurring during wrestling or horseplay, while Curley indicates that he did not leave the meeting with the impression that it was sexual at all, rather that it was "horseplay" or similar terms. Since perjury requires corroboration, the people I've spoken to believe it will be difficult to prove without having Schultz or Curley testify or make a deal. That's very unlikely.

As I said, I don't think any of these legal nuances really excuse the principals' behavior in terms of not making sure the child was identified and was safe, not conducting their own investigation, not contacting the appropriate authorities, etc. But, it should at least give caution to concluding for sure that we know what was actually said in those meetings. If McQueary and Paterno are now overstating what was actually said in those meetings, colored by the efforts of the AG and governor; if the actual conversations were much more along the lines of "something I thought was inappropriate" or "Not sure it was sexual, but it made me uncomfortable", it certainly is easier to reconcile with the almost inexplicable minimal actions you see from the others, not just Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, but Dranov, who has much less to gain and much more to lose from protecting Penn State football. Of course, the lack of action is also consistent with efforts to prevent that negative attention and protect that image, among other things.

So, this is why the further testimony, both that already given which we have not seen, and what may emerge through cross-examination, is important, as is any documentary evidence that may exist. While I would agree with Ray that even in the case that McQueary said he saw "something inappropriate", I would expect much more vigorous action (especially since Schultz knew of the 1998 incident, although he appeared unaware of the extent of the investigation in his testimony)--I would caution against drawing any solid conclusions about what Mike or anyone else said or did just yet.

   251. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:33 PM (#4028597)
As I said, I don't think any of these legal nuances really excuse the principals' behavior in terms of not making sure the child was identified and was safe, not conducting their own investigation, not contacting the appropriate authorities, etc. But, it should at least give caution to concluding for sure that we know what was actually said in those meetings. If McQueary and Paterno are now overstating what was actually said in those meetings, colored by the efforts of the AG and governor; if the actual conversations were much more along the lines of "something I thought was inappropriate" or "Not sure it was sexual, but it made me uncomfortable", it certainly is easier to reconcile with the almost inexplicable minimal actions you see from the others, not just Curley, Schultz, and Spanier, but Dranov, who has much less to gain and much more to lose from protecting Penn State football. Of course, the lack of action is also consistent with efforts to prevent that negative attention and protect that image, among other things.

So, this is why the further testimony, both that already given which we have not seen, and what may emerge through cross-examination, is important, as is any documentary evidence that may exist. While I would agree with Ray that even in the case that McQueary said he saw "something inappropriate", I would expect much more vigorous action (especially since Schultz knew of the 1998 incident, although he appeared unaware of the extent of the investigation in his testimony)--I would caution against drawing any solid conclusions about what Mike or anyone else said or did just yet.


I appreciate your comments here.

I'll note for the record that I've made no comment about how the trials (should they proceed) will turn out. I've merely commented on what Paterno knew, and BOTH Paterno and McQueary agree that McQueary told him at least that fondling or something of a sexual nature occurred in the shower.

Could both Paterno and McQueary have overstated their testimony? I find this unbelievable. The very fact that they had a special meeting on a Saturday morning (which McQueary testified had never happened before) so that McQueary could relay his information to Paterno cuts hard against this. The idea that McQueary never told Paterno that morning that he witnessed conduct sexual in nature goes against almost all available evidence (Dranov's story excepted).

Let's review their various stories as laid out in the GJ presentment. I'm paraphrasing here but using the exact words and adjectives from the GJ presentment:

McQueary: "I told Paterno that it was in the shower and was sexual in nature and way over the line. I told Schultz and Curley that there was intercourse." [Actually this specific part I got from the preliminary hearing.]

Paterno: "McQueary was very upset and told me that he had seen Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Curley: "McQueary told Schultz and I there was inappropriate conduct in the shower that made him uncomfortable. He did not tell me it was sexual in nature. I knew vaguely of the 1998 report." [Note that Curley's first two sentences do not really fit together. RD.]

Schultz: "Paterno told Curley and I that there was disturbing and inappropriate conduct in the shower. McQueary told Curley and I that there was an incident in the shower; I'm very unsure exactly what McQueary told me but I have the impression McQueary told me that Sandusky inappropriately grabbed the boy's genitals while wrestling, so I concede that McQueary's report to me was of inappropriate sexual conduct. However, I don't think the allegations were that serious, and Curley and I had no indication that a crime had occurred. I am adamant that neither Paterno nor McQueary told me there was intercourse." [As you can see, Schultz's testimony is all over the map, and doesn't really fit either. Grabbing the boy's genitals is not a crime? RD]

Spanier: "Curley and Schultz reported an incident with Sandusky that made a staff member uncomfortable. It was Jerry Sandusky in the football building locker area in the shower with a younger child and they were horsing around. However, I deny that the report was sexual in nature." [This doesn't seem to be internally consistent either. RD]

----

The bottom line is that ALL of them agree that McQueary told them there was "inappropriate" conduct in the shower. Curley and Schultz disagree as to whether the conduct was "sexual in nature," but it doesn't even make sense that inappropriate conduct in the shower wouldn't suggest anything sexual in nature. Conflicting testimony like Dranov's is not unusual, but with all of the involved parties agreeing that McQueary's report was of inappropriate conduct in the shower -- including Paterno himself, who also conceded McQueary reported conduct that was sexual in nature -- I don't see how it can reasonably be argued that Paterno was not told by McQueary that the conduct was not sexual in nature. Schultz specifically says that Paterno told Curley and him that there was disturbing and inappropriate conduct in the shower.
   252. bunyon Posted: January 04, 2012 at 12:40 PM (#4028609)
I've put more people on ignore here in the past three weeks than I have ever done for many years previous.



This is the first time I've felt the need to use the function. The people who have concluded that Poz is a shill for child molestation are completely off base here, and their statements have reached the point of utter lunacy.


Got about halfway through the thread trying to read comments about batting and baseball. What we need is not an ignore poster function but an ignore word function. If I could ignore any post containing Paterno, Sandusky or sanctimonius, this thread would be really cool.

I disagree with Posnanski in his stand. But if he writes interesting stuff about baseball, I'll read it. I'm less likely to view his praise of individuals in the sport as reliable than I was previously, but I still like his take on the actual games. His article, linked here, led me to other interesting articles and, eventually, all the way back to, what is essentially an ongoing debate that is over a century old. That is good stuff.
   253. Something Other Posted: January 04, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4028791)
i also am looking at the coverup. it doewsn't look funny to me at all. say nothing, do nothing. paterno knows who mcqueary is, knows his father. mcqueary isn't gonna go telling the DA - especially seeing as how the previous one who was gonna do some indicting, had got hisself murdered by persons unknown. paterno was Godly, wasn't nobody gonna oppose Him. He figured it would go away. the raped kid was a nobody, some piece of crap kid of some poor single mother who wasn't gonna stand down joe the God. not there. all the other problems had somehow just gone away, why wouldn't they contineu to just go away?

joe wasn't about to give up his power and his God-like status, let's be real here. for some nobody kid?
Bingo.

I'd love to be able to write that people generally do the right thing, but they don't. My experience is just the opposite, that people do the convenient thing and the thing that benefits or protects them. I've seen people consign other people to real misery for literally a few bucks. I've seen lives ruined to slake someone's ego. People are generally a miserable lot when their status is
threatened, and I'm thoroughly unsurprised by the suggestion that a powerful man would ignore the possibility of a child's life being ruined in order to preserve his position.

as for the - is sandusky a rapist? question, all i can say is that a 60+ year old man was alone naked in a shower with a naked 10 year old boy at night. sandusky himself admits that he was alone in the shower with a naked 10 year old boy, so this is not mcqueary inventing it. there is NO way this was not sexual. NO way. the fact that mcqueary had trouble talking about it, in my opinion, means like zero.
Gotta disagree throughly here, though. I used to swim pretty much daily, after work, after classes, often fairly late at night. The local HS pool was open until 8 pm, the university pool until 930 pm. From time to time local kids would use the pool late and it was routine for anyone to shower off the chlorine post-swim. I'd find myself in the shower with a variety of folks including the occasional stray little kid from time to time. It can be entirely innocent.
   254. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4028863)
Of course, Schultz and Curley appear to differ on that, too...


Unsurprisingly, given that we're talking about the precise wording of one fifteen-year-old conversation, of which no known record exists.
   255. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4028870)
At this point I don't care what Posnanski's thoughts on the matter are, or what his book will look like.


Why bother reading books before denouncing them? Those witches aren't going to burn themselves!
   256. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4028888)
Unsurprisingly, given that we're talking about the precise wording of one fifteen-year-old conversation, of which no known record exists.


? The conversation was in 2002.

And we aren't really talking about "precise wording" but about the substance of what McQueary told them.

And it wasn't a "What did you have for dinner?" type of conversation. It was a vitally important conversation, was (at a minimum, as they all agree) about "inappropriate" conduct "in the shower" with a young boy by a 60-year-old high profile former Penn State coach who held emeritus status with the university. It was a conversation in which Curley and Schultz were receiving an eye witness account from a 27 year old graduate assistant, on the heels of being advised by Joe Paterno that Paterno had received an account. It was a conversation in which they were charged with taking appropriate action.

   257. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4028899)
? The conversation was in 2002.


My mistake. Ten years is still plenty of time for memories to blur a bit around the edges, so my larger point stands.

And we aren't really talking about "precise wording" but about the substance of what McQueary told them.


Yes, actually, we are talking about the "precise wording" of the conversation, since that's what governs the amount of detail about Sandusky's actions that all the participants in this little scene received. The importance of the conversation doesn't make precise recall of exactly what was said by whom any less difficult - if anything, it makes it more so, since all the participants have had years and years to lie to themselves about exactly what they did and why they did it, to paint themselves in the best possible light (as is only human nature).
   258. Kurt Posted: January 04, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4028907)
Why bother reading books before denouncing them?

He's not denouncing the book; he's saying he doesn't care about it. I can identify with him; there are millions upon millions of books I don't care about.
   259. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4028923)
What is your point, Vlad? That McQueary didn't tell Paterno that the conduct he witnessed was sexual in nature? That it is incorrect to say that Paterno didn't go to the authorities? Because that's all I've really argued in this thread; I haven't taken any position on whether the charges against Curley and Schultz will stand up.
   260. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4028944)
What is your point, Vlad?


That it's hardly surprising that the accounts of Schultz and Curley would differ from that of McQueary in some respects, since they're talking about a conversation that happened a long time ago, no independent record of the conversation exists, none of the parties involved have any knowledge of exactly how well the other parties involved in the conversation understood what was being said, and people's memories are very fallible even in the best of circumstances (i.e. when they don't have a strong incentive to retrospectively lie to themselves). I would've thought that was fairly clear from my post, since that's exactly what I said the first time around. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring all that other stuff into it - if I'd wanted to talk about that stuff, I would've said something about it. I wasn't even talking to you in that post in the first place - I was replying to something GotowarMissAgnes said in #239.

He's not denouncing the book; he's saying he doesn't care about it.


Ray's going beyond an expression of apathy about the book. In the post in question, he also said that "[Posnanski] has nothing to add, nothing to say, nothing of value to give," and that Posnanski is "incapable of offering any intelligent thought on the matter at all." That is not a position that a fair-minded person could reasonably take in the absence of more information about Posnanski's book, even if that person didn't see any value in Posnanski's statements to date.
   261. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4028959)
That it's hardly surprising that the accounts of Schultz and Curley would differ from that of McQueary in some respects, since they're talking about a conversation that happened a long time ago, no independent record of the conversation exists, none of the parties involved have any knowledge of exactly how well the other parties involved in the conversation understood what was being said, and people's memories are very fallible even in the best of circumstances (i.e. when they don't have a strong incentive to retrospectively lie to themselves). I would've thought that was fairly clear from my post, since that's exactly what I said the first time around. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring all that other stuff into it - if I'd wanted to talk about that stuff, I would've said something about it. I wasn't even talking to you in that post in the first place - I was replying to something GotowarMissAgnes said in #239.


I still don't see a point there. (Are you arguing that the charges against Curley and Schultz won't stand up?) But that's fine.
   262. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 04, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4028980)
Just a few comments, Ray, to lay out a few details. You have Curley and, possibly, Dranov, who have or may indicate that Mike did not convey to them that it was sexual. You have Mike, his father, Paterno, and possibly Schultz who have said or will say what Mike conveyed indicated that he thought it was sexual. If Dranov's testimony raises doubts about what Mike said that very evening, casting doubt as well on what he told his father, and anyone after that, then the waters become muddier. In addition, in the preliminary hearing, Mike's father never testifies that Mike indicated that evening that he thought what he saw was intercourse, although he supports his son's claim and describes it as sexual.

Also, note that Paterno's testimony regarding what happened after he received Mike's report is either incomplete and/or is contradicted by both Curley and Schultz. Paterno indicates he calls Curley, but provides no details on what he said other than that he passed along what Mike told him. He never mentions or is asked about an in person meeting, in fact stating that he is not aware of that report being passed along to any other University official. That's directly contradicted by Schultz and Curley. Finally, he notes that he is unsure when he called Curley, saying that he didn't want to disturb their weekend, but also that it could have been that very Saturday after talking with Mike or early that week.

Curley testifies to a call on Sunday followed by an in-person meeting that same day at Paterno's house. Schultz confirms the in-person meeting, but states it was in his office, and not sure about it being on that Sunday. They both agree that Paterno described the conduct as inappropriate, disturbing and that it made Mike uncomfortable. Neither of the three directly indicates that Paterno suggested Mike indicated it was sexual.

Finally, note the question Caroline Ruberto asks Mike's father about Dranov: "Isn't it your recollection that your son described to Dr. Dranov what happened that evening in the shower as only hearing something in the shower and drawing conclusions about what happened but not seeing anything in the shower?" That suggests to at least some of the lawyers I know that there are some significant aspects of these conversations that are yet to be revealed which may not support Mike's current testimony.

While Schultz differs from Curley, he also directly contradicts Mike's claim that he says he told them he thought he was seeing intercourse. And looking back over the prelim, I think Schultz's testimony contradicts Curley less than it might appear. His response when asked about whether grabbing genitals is inappropriate sexual contact is: "Oh, absolutely. Well, I don't know the definition of sexual, but that's certainly inappropriate for somebody to do." You then have the back and forth on page 224-226 where he and the lawyer discuss whether something like grabbing a boy's genitals could be accidental or could occur in the context of wrestling around and whether that is or is not inappropriate sexual contact. Schultz seems to trying to say that there are "genital grabs" that may be inappropriate, but not be sexual, in the context of wrestling or roughhousing (and I'd have to say, as I think you would, too, that this is an incredibly odd distinction to make, even more so between an unrelated adult and a child, naked, in a shower alone, on an empty college campus during Spring Break).

With Paterno and the others, to prove perjury requires not just that Mike thinks he conveyed something, but that the others understood that. So, if Mike said things in some vague way, you can have Paterno, Schultz and Curley drawing different conclusions. And, if that lack of clarity in Mike's description is supported by Dranov and/or documents...well, things look a little different than in the presentment, at least. As the defense attorneys said, the exact words Mike used matter for the perjury charge.

So, I think you'll also see the defense raising many questions about what Mike saw and heard, as well as what he told others. Clearly, the clapping by the defense attorney offers another "skin on skin" sound that Mike has now testified sounds like what he heard. I think you'll hear them bring witnesses that will testify to the type of roughhousing, wrestling (I'm a high school and college wrestler, so I can tell you lots of moves that involve what looks a hell of a lot like "fondling" and grabbing genitals) that was common among Second Mile activities, both in and out of showers. They'll raise questions about what Mike really could have seen given his testimony (Sandusky's back to him, quick glances in the mirror), as well as how I think I've explained they may be able to point to problems in what he told people that night and afterwards.

While I think both you and I and most people would have a huge problem thinking this provides reasonable doubt for Curley and Schultz (and certainly not for Sandusky, given the other information we have at this point), enough testimony about vague descriptions and/or contradictions might certainly allow the defense to convince some people that Mike was not nearly as clear in what he described 9 years ago as he is today and that Curley and Schultz could conclude that "inappropriate" meant roughhousing in the showers, with the grab of the genitals being roughhousing/wrestling that Mike interpreted as sexual or even simply not an accurate description of what happened, given the circumstances that night.

I'd like to think I would react differently than these individuals did--that I'd immediately find out where the child was and whether he was safe, that I'd call the authorities, etc. But I've never been in the situation where someone came to me with information like this, vague or not, about an individual that I knew for decades who had been honored by governors and a President for their work with at-risk kids. I don't know any of the individuals well, but what interactions I have had and what I know from others who know them better than I do don't make it any easier to understand their actions.

As I've said before, don't interpret what I write as a defense of the actions taken or not taken. If anything, take it as trying to make sense of an extremely disturbing set of events (to give a sense of how disturbing, my children went to the elementary school that sits next to Sandusky's home). I can certainly believe an alternative story that is much more critical of their actions. Ultimately, I hope the trial helps with that understanding and that perhaps some future good can come of what happened here by making it less likely that some child is hurt.


   263. bunyon Posted: January 04, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4028994)
I think Cardsfanboy's argument on the 1st page of this thread was worse

I could be wrong, but I thought his argument wasn't criticizing parents of the abused but parents of the adults who didn't do more to stop the abuse. Which may be a little odd, but certainly isn't terrible.

IOW, he isn't criticizing parents of the abused kids for not teaching the kids to speak up but blaming, say, the parents of Mike McQueary for raising him to do little when confronted with the abuse.


Perhaps I just can't conceive of anyone making the argument you all seem to think he made.
   264. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 04, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4028999)
I agree, Vlad, that contradictions are certainly to be expected and may never be resolved even through the trial. But, it is possible that testimony and any documents that do exist will help resolve some of those. That possibility, and perhaps my inability to be totally objective about this given my circumstances, prevents me from getting to the conclusions Ray draws about the knowledge of who said and did what. I may get there eventually.
   265. JPWF1313 Posted: January 04, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4029028)
Just a few comments, Ray, to lay out a few details. You have Curley and, possibly, Dranov, who have or may indicate that Mike did not convey to them that it was sexual. You have Mike, his father, Paterno, and possibly Schultz who have said or will say what Mike conveyed indicated that he thought it was sexual. If Dranov's testimony raises doubts about what Mike said that very evening, casting doubt as well on what he told his father, and anyone after that, then the waters become muddier. In addition, in the preliminary hearing, Mike's father never testifies that Mike indicated that evening that he thought what he saw was intercourse, although he supports his son's claim and describes it as sexual.


If McQueary told this people back in 2002 the same thing he told the grand jury, they all have a motive to either say, "no McQueary did not tell me that," or to say that McQueary told them something like that (not quite as bad) and they passed it on to someone who they though did something (which seems to be the Joe Pa tactic).

My best guess is that McQueary saw something- I don't know if he actually saw what he told the Grand Jury in 2010/2011 or merely heard what sounded like what he later described seeing to the grand jury- in any event, he basically loses his cookies and runs away- goes to dad... and waters it down, dad has a friend there, a doctor, who starts asking some specific questions, and McQueary doesn't answer in specifics, he equivocates- dad says to go to Joe Pa... why? because Joe Pa is The Man.

McQueary goes to Joe Pa, tells hims he saw Sandusky horsing around naked with a boy, "something sexual"- Joe Pa reflects that Sandusky no longer worked for him or the school, Joe Pa goes to Curley and Schmidt, and tells them there is an issue -
Curley and Schmidt are a bunch of cringing sycophants, they want to do what Joe Pa wants them to do, but they don't know what Joe Pa wants them to do, he doesn't tell them, Joe Pa either doesn't know what to do or simply does not want to deal with it any more than necessary in his mind - he wants to dump it off on someone else, and in his mind that's just what he did.


a long winded way of saying that I doubt anyone other than Sandusky gets convicted.... Should McQueary/Paterno/Schmidt/Curley et al, be put through some discomfort anyway, hell yes, I think each of them did something to make a bad situation a little worse.
   266. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4029030)
I think Cardsfanboy's argument on the 1st page of this thread was worse

I could be wrong, but I thought his argument wasn't criticizing parents of the abused but parents of the adults who didn't do more to stop the abuse. Which may be a little odd, but certainly isn't terrible.

IOW, he isn't criticizing parents of the abused kids for not teaching the kids to speak up but blaming, say, the parents of Mike McQueary for raising him to do little when confronted with the abuse.

Perhaps I just can't conceive of anyone making the argument you all seem to think he made.


That's not how I understood Cardsfanboy's ridiculous argument to begin with, and it's not how I understand it on a re-read, and Cardsfanboy didn't correct anyone's interpretation of it, but I'm happy to let him clarify/revise/explain that it wasn't his argument. And I'll accept his clarification.

To refresh, his argument was:

I don't give a crap about Paterno to be honest one way or another. I blame Sandusky, I blame McCreary, then I blame the AD, and then I blame Paterno, and lastly I blame the parents for not raising a kid to speak out.


I don't see that last part as applying to McQueary because it makes no sense as applied to McQueary. McQueary did speak out.
   267. robinred Posted: January 04, 2012 at 07:29 PM (#4029045)
I have actually found this thread to be useful and educational FWIW. Thanks for posting, Agnes (and others).
   268. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:32 PM (#4029159)
I don't even think you have to even go to the "cringing sycophants". Suppose Mike's description in 2002 was simply less graphic and detailed and presented with greater uncertainty about what he thought he saw. Curley meets with Sandusky, who denies he was there with anyone (in testimony, Curley indicates Sandusky first denied being there, but then acknowledged he was there, but not with a child; and I think most reasonable people would have all sorts of red flags waving at that change in story). But, because they've waited a few weeks to talk with Mike and then get this information, Curley simply has competing claims from Mike and Jerry. Curley claims to have no knowledge of the 1998 incident, so he proposes the action he did.

Now, this still leads a lot of questions about Schultz who knew about 1998, and Spanier, who Schultz says he believes knew about 1998, too. I would think that one or both of them would bring this up in discussions with Curley. Schultz appeared pretty uninformed about the 1998 incident in testimony. I would guess from that info that Spanier knew only the barest details. I think that may be more consistent with incompetence and/or maybe, since we know of spouses who seem to miss these signs of predation (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/26/how-dorothy-sandusky-could-have-been-deceived.html), that they were unwilling or unable to believe this horror, than sycophancy. The fact that nothing came of the 1998 incident may even have led them to be more willing to disbelieve.

Again, perhaps with my own advantage of hindsight, I still find it hard to understand how you don't hand this over to the police for further investigation, as well as learn more about the previous incident. I don't know how you don't make efforts immediately and afterwards to find the child. I don't know how you don't ask lots of detailed questions to Paterno, Mike, Jerry, etc. to make sure you understand what they think they saw and heard and said. I don't know how you don't follow up if you think the action was too mild. I don't know how you continue to do many other things (participating in Second Mile events, allowing Sandusky to conduct football camps, etc.). I don't know that we'll ever get answers to any of the many questions. But, I do hope that the trial may clarify a few things for everyone.
   269. cardsfanboy Posted: January 04, 2012 at 09:55 PM (#4029172)
I had lost this thread and haven't read any of it since a day or two ago. But for the record, I was criticizing the parents. It's a minor criticism on a scale of 1-100 with 100 being the harshest criticism possible(aimed at Sandusky of course) my criticism of the parents is a 10 or so. Paterno a 30, the Ad a 50, Mcquery a 60 for not following up, as he was the primary witness.

my criticism of the parents is that their kid was raped and didn't feel comfortable enough with them to inform them of the crime. Whether it's because they exhibit some sense of worship of Sadusky or that the kid believed they wouldn't believe him, or whether it's because the kid felt shamed, it didn't matter, the parents failed somewhere raising their child.

   270. ray james Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4029185)
CFB, just end it now. You have no clue about what you're talking about. You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.
   271. Lassus Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:03 PM (#4029186)
CFB, I'm on your side 90% of the time, but I think that criticism borders on hallucinatory and/or insane.
   272. cardsfanboy Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4029198)
I don't see why it borders on insane, everything is about degrees, I'm not saying the parents are at fault or anything, but why was an adult non-relative allowed to have free reign of their kid? Especially in an era where Michael Jackson and Priest stories was daily newspaper material? On top of that, why wouldn't the kid report the incident to his parents? every reason given for not reporting it, is a failure on the parents part to teach the kid.

Mind you these were troubled youth or something, so there is a possibility the kids didn't have good parents which of course also put the kids into this situation to be taken advantage of.
   273. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4029200)
my criticism of the parents is that their kid was raped and didn't feel comfortable enough with them to inform them of the crime. Whether it's because they exhibit some sense of worship of Sadusky or that the kid believed they wouldn't believe him, or whether it's because the kid felt shamed, it didn't matter, the parents failed somewhere raising their child.

This is just crazy. An abused child often feels ashamed, no matter how s/he was raised. Their decisions aren't rational, and you can't predict what they will do.

As I said previously, I have to assume you're not a parent -- or, if you are, your child(ren) is/are very, very young. If you do have a child, now or in the future...someday, at LEAST once, s/he is going to do something that you absolutely don't see coming, and it's not going to matter how you raised him/her, because sometimes kids just do crazy ####.

And that's without abuse entering the picture. Abuse completely ##### with a child's mind. Victims often feel like they are to blame, that it was their fault, that they will get in trouble. You can tell them otherwise until you are blue in the face; trauma often trumps everything else.
   274. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4029201)
I'd like to add to the praise for Agnes's comments.
   275. Morty Causa Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:25 PM (#4029205)
Me, too.
   276. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4029232)
Thanks, guys. Needless to say, it's been an emotional two months in State College for people trying to understand what happened. I haven't really paid much attention to the earlier discussions on the topic here, so I hope those comments do help others try to understand. And, ultimately, maybe that helps prevent it from happening somewhere else.
   277. cardsfanboy Posted: January 04, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4029233)
This is just crazy. An abused child often feels ashamed, no matter how s/he was raised. Their decisions aren't rational, and you can't predict what they will do.

As I said previously, I have to assume you're not a parent -- or, if you are, your child(ren) is/are very, very young. If you do have a child, now or in the future...someday, at LEAST once, s/he is going to do something that you absolutely don't see coming, and it's not going to matter how you raised him/her, because sometimes kids just do crazy ####.

And that's without abuse entering the picture. Abuse completely ##### with a child's mind. Victims often feel like they are to blame, that it was their fault, that they will get in trouble. You can tell them otherwise until you are blue in the face; trauma often trumps everything else.


Don't have a child, have plenty of nieces and nephews, and don't really think the argument that if you aren't a parent, you can't understand is a good argument.

Of course the child is going to do something that I wouldn't have predicted. But I fully expect any child I have to know that they are the single most important thing, and that I will move heaven and earth to make sure they are safe. That if Jesus himself came down and sodomized him, that I would find a way to make him pay. Kids are raised today knowing about strangers, knowing about touching naughty parts etc. Priests end up getting away with it as frequently as they have in the past partially because the parents have built them up as authority figures above the parents themselves. The reason why I think Sandusky got away with it as long as he has is for similar reasons, the authority figures in the childs lives treated him as if he was a better/higher authority than them.

And again, the blame(too harsh of a word, fault?) I'm laying at the parents feet is miniscule, I was just listing the order of the people I find at fault here. In the big picture the blame I lay on the parents is equivalent to a second baseman making an error in the first inning of the game to allow a man on base which in the ninth inning allowed their pitcher to have to face Albert Pujols with 2 outs and the bases loaded who then hits a grandslam to make the final score 4-0.
   278. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4029236)
I don't see why it borders on insane, everything is about degrees, I'm not saying the parents are at fault or anything, but why was an adult non-relative allowed to have free reign of their kid? Especially in an era where Michael Jackson and Priest stories was daily newspaper material? On top of that, why wouldn't the kid report the incident to his parents? every reason given for not reporting it, is a failure on the parents part to teach the kid.

Believe it or not, kids are not with their parents 24x7. They go to school. They go to camp. They go to a friend's house. And so on.

Yes, parents have a responsibility to vet these things, but there are limits as to what you can do. A prominent, local charity that works with disadvantaged children to get them involved with athletics? One more or less affiliated with Penn State? This hardly screams Michael Jackson.
   279. cardsfanboy Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4029240)
Believe it or not, kids are not with their parents 24x7. They go to school. They go to camp. They go to a friend's house. And so on.

Yes, parents have a responsibility to vet these things, but there are limits as to what you can do. A prominent, local charity that works with disadvantaged children to get them involved with athletics? One more or less affiliated with Penn State? This hardly screams Michael Jackson.


Trust me on this one, I absolutely support the kids going out and about to see the world(One of my nephews is basically oversheltered by his mom) I'm not laying one single piece of fault at the parents feet for the actions that happened to him. I'm only saying that they should feel partial responsibility for their kid not informing them of the actions after it happened.
   280. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4029241)
Don't have a child, have plenty of nieces and nephews, and don't really think the argument that if you aren't a parent, you can't understand is a good argument.

That wasn't my argument. My argument is that I would be amazed if someone who had actually raised children would have your attitude, because it's just a mind-boggling attitude.
Of course the child is going to do something that I wouldn't have predicted. But I fully expect any child I have to know that they are the single most important thing, and that I will move heaven and earth to make sure they are safe. That if Jesus himself came down and sodomized him, that I would find a way to make him pay. Kids are raised today knowing about strangers, knowing about touching naughty parts etc. Priests end up getting away with it as frequently as they have in the past partially because the parents have built them up as authority figures above the parents themselves. The reason why I think Sandusky got away with it as long as he has is for similar reasons, the authority figures in the childs lives treated him as if he was a better/higher authority than them.

All I'm saying is that you can tell those kids about how important they are to you, and you can tell them you'd do anything to make sure they are safe, and you can tell them to tell you if anyone, NO MATTER WHO, touches them inappropriately...but if you think that gives you a 100% guarantee that they will then tell you immediately should they be abused, you're out of your mind.

Unless some kind of actual evidence comes to light that shows the parents knew what was going on, or at least had reason to suspect, I give them absolutely ZERO blame. You're assuming they didn't tell the kids to be sure to report abuse, but that assumes facts not in evidence.
   281. CrosbyBird Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:13 PM (#4029246)
This is just crazy. An abused child often feels ashamed, no matter how s/he was raised. Their decisions aren't rational, and you can't predict what they will do.


I am fortunate enough to have no personal or even secondhand experience with abuse, so I can't really know how I'd react. If I were a parent that didn't recognize the injury done to my child and hadn't established enough trust for my child to tell me everything, no matter how uncomfortable, then I'm pretty sure that I'd consider myself blameworthy.

That might well be an unreasonable standard, but are there really parents out there that would feel differently? I'm sure my dad blamed himself when my sister had a brain tumor, and that's something he clearly had no influence over.
   282. cardsfanboy Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4029248)
nless some kind of actual evidence comes to light that shows the parents knew what was going on, or at least had reason to suspect, I give them absolutely ZERO blame. You're assuming they didn't tell the kids to be sure to report abuse, but that assumes facts not in evidence.


And that is why I give them so little blame, you gave them zero, I gave them a tad more than zero, but hardly any real amount.
   283. Andere Richtingen Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:27 PM (#4029252)
A few days after the #### hit the fan here, we had some friends over for dinner, and of course, the conversation quickly turned to the scandal. My friend Steve's theory was that McQueary was not telling the truth. It was the only way to jibe what he told the grand jury with what was being said by four other people. "Not telling the truth" could mean any combination of misremembering, euphemizing what he saw to Paterno, Shultz and Curley (which of course he pretty much admitted), and probably to a lesser extent, lying. It was an intriguing proposition, and I have to say everything revealed since then is consistent with that.

You have someone (McQueary) saying something he doesn't want to say to someone (Paterno, at first) who doesn't want to hear it. This is a perfect formula for distortion.

And of course, this is not atypical at all for child sexual abuse situations. No one wants to talk about it. No one wants to hear it. So no one does.

I don't know that this is what happened, but it's the most plausible scenario I can think of. I will be surprised if the truth isn't revealed to reflect this sort of failure to communicate. As I was first inclined to think when this all went down, it's hard for me to demonize McQueary and Paterno too much on this -- at least they said something to someone in authority. And I can see how human nature would lead them not to follow up afterward. They saw telling someone of authority as enough to absolve them of any responsibility for a situation they wanted nothing to do with. Not the right thing to do, but sadly, more than what most people would have done, I think.
   284. Andere Richtingen Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4029254)
And I need to have a beer with GtWMA.
   285. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4029258)
I am fortunate enough to have no personal or even secondhand experience with abuse, so I can't really know how I'd react. If I were a parent that didn't recognize the injury done to my child and hadn't established enough trust for my child to tell me everything, no matter how uncomfortable, then I'm pretty sure that I'd consider myself blameworthy.

That might well be an unreasonable standard, but are there really parents out there that would feel differently? I'm sure my dad blamed himself when my sister had a brain tumor, and that's something he clearly had no influence over.

ABSOLUTELY I would expect the parents to blame themselves; that's natural. I blame myself when my kids struggle, or get into trouble, or...whatever. It's what parents do.

They certainly don't need CFB to tell them they deserve blame.
   286. Morty Causa Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:34 PM (#4029259)
I am fortunate enough to have no personal or even secondhand experience with abuse, so I can't really know how I'd react. If I were a parent that didn't recognize the injury done to my child and hadn't established enough trust for my child to tell me everything, no matter how uncomfortable, then I'm pretty sure that I'd consider myself blameworthy.


Yes, this puts it well. I think those who take umbrage to cbf's phrase feel that by bringing up the idea of any possible blame in any fashion by the parents this somehow exonerates to some degree the clearly more culpable. I can see that, of course, but I thought it a fairly vanilla qualification, sort of an all-inclusive catch-all along the lines of CB's generalization.
   287. Don Geovany Soto (chris h.) Posted: January 04, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4029262)
And that is why I give them so little blame, you gave them zero, I gave them a tad more than zero, but hardly any real amount.

And if you can't see that there is a yawning chasm between "so little" and "zero," then there's probably not much point in continuing this debate.
   288. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 05, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4029324)
I had lost this thread and haven't read any of it since a day or two ago. But for the record, I was criticizing the parents. It's a minor criticism on a scale of 1-100 with 100 being the harshest criticism possible(aimed at Sandusky of course) my criticism of the parents is a 10 or so. Paterno a 30, the Ad a 50, Mcquery a 60 for not following up, as he was the primary witness.

my criticism of the parents is that their kid was raped and didn't feel comfortable enough with them to inform them of the crime. Whether it's because they exhibit some sense of worship of Sadusky or that the kid believed they wouldn't believe him, or whether it's because the kid felt shamed, it didn't matter, the parents failed somewhere raising their child.


See, Bunyon? We were right.

Cardsfanboy, the kid was 10 or 12. Aside from what I wrote earlier when you first made this argument -- and now you seem to have doubled down on it -- you're expecting the kid to react like an adult might, which just makes no sense. He's a kid.
   289. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 05, 2012 at 01:51 AM (#4029326)
You have someone (McQueary) saying something he doesn't want to say to someone (Paterno, at first) who doesn't want to hear it. This is a perfect formula for distortion.


Then why wouldn't he just not say it? Why call a meeting with Paterno at his home on a Saturday morning in the first place?

And of course, this is not atypical at all for child sexual abuse situations. No one wants to talk about it. No one wants to hear it. So no one does.


Except that they did. McQueary scheduled a meeting. Paterno testified that McQueary told him something of a sexual nature in the shower had gone on. ALL FOUR OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED -- McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley -- agree that McQueary reported something "inappropriate" to them that had happened "in the shower." (And McQueary and Paterno and Schultz all agree that McQueary went further than that.) And I don't know what in the hell "inappropriate" conduct "in the shower" would suggest if not something sexual. That's one problem with your argument.

The other problem is that Paterno testified that McQueary told him it was something sexual in nature in the shower. Paterno's testimony really kills this theory.

   290. cardsfanboy Posted: January 05, 2012 at 03:41 AM (#4029345)

Cardsfanboy, the kid was 10 or 12. Aside from what I wrote earlier when you first made this argument -- and now you seem to have doubled down on it -- you're expecting the kid to react like an adult might, which just makes no sense. He's a ki


I keep expecting you to act like an adult and see degrees of anything, and yet you are easily the most simplistic person I've ever met on this board, your entire world view is black and white and it's silly having a discussion with you that involves any nuances.


I'm not expecting the kid to act like an adult, I'm expecting the parents to have raised a 10-12 year old who is willing to discuss things with his parents, who is not intimidated by his parents worship of a heroic figure, who expects his parents to pick up on minor cues that indicate a problem.

I've known (at least)three girls who were molested in one way or another, and the failure to identify was a fault of the parents in all of these cases. A girl who's grandpa had her play with his little soldier. A girl who knew way too much about a man's body at a young age, or just a precocious pre-teen who wanted to impress her step father. I do not blame the victims in any case, as a witness(in one of those cases), even though I was only 15 I blame myself for not picking up certain obvious signs in retrospect, and I blame a parent who didn't supervise enough in another case. But ultimately none of these cases got reported right away, (and only one reached the courts) but I still don't see how a parent can think they didn't fail as a parent in raising their kids, who didn't report the problems.

I'm not blaming the kids, I'm very slightly(and Ray, these are called degrees. the world isn't a flat black and white world, please attempt to understand that my "blame" on the parents is totally miniscule...I know you believe in a world that is fictional and only in two colors, black and white, but the rest of us have to deal with a world a little more complex than that) blaming the parents for setting up an environment where the kids didn't feel ok with reporting the crime (regardless of why they didn't)
   291. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 05, 2012 at 06:51 AM (#4029364)
Ray, that's where Schultz's testimony is relevant. By all accounts Sandusky acts like this overgrown kid all the time---water balloon fights, punches and headlocks, etc.--- Schultz appears to me to be saying that he saw this as some roughhousing in the shower where whatever Sandusky did was open to interpretation to not be sexual, even if Mike thought it was. Now, whether this, which I agree is an admittedly bizarre interpretation, is a 100% accurate recollection of what Schultz understood or is colored by time and the other things Vlad notes above is something we may find out later. And given what Schultz knew about 1998, I don't know how you don't call Harmon, the police chief, and ask him to investigate.

And, then, you have to consider not only what people say they said or heard, but what they did. McQueary thinks it was sexual, but doesn't call the police or CYS immediately. He lets Schultz know, but doesn't follow up in any significant way to question the appropriateness of actions taken. He tells his father and a physician the story, and they don't call the police or CYS immediately, and don't follow up in any significant way to question what was done. He tell Paterno that it is sexual, and Paterno waits anywhere from one day to one week to call Curley, and never contacts the police or CYS, and never follows up to question the actions taken. Whatever Paterno says to Curley on the phone, they wait several days to speak with McQueary. None of that speaks to people who felt this was of a "severe sexual nature".

So, it's these bizarre inconsistencies in statements and between statements and actions that suggest to me that there's more to learn. These could certainly be consistent with an effort to cover up. But, it could also speak to incompetence/disbelief, etc. In either case, it's just a horrible situation considering how many kids may have been harmed.

   292. bunyon Posted: January 05, 2012 at 09:35 AM (#4029379)
See, Bunyon? We were right.

Yeah, I see this. CFB, put me down with the folks saying you've been caught leaning toward second.

   293. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: January 05, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4029395)
My biggest disappointment with regard to Poz is the way he clammed up after his initial defense of Paterno. He was an incredibly prolific blogger and tweeter, yet when this story broke he, a reporter no less, did the equivalent of hiding under a blanket. He will spend 5,000 words writing about Snuggies, yet when it comes to a major story of wide interest, one which he was better-placed to cover than just about anyone (he has been on campus for weeks talking with Paterno), he vanishes. To me, that's an abdication of his professional responsibility.
   294. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 05, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4029420)
Except that they did. McQueary scheduled a meeting. Paterno testified that McQueary told him something of a sexual nature in the shower had gone on. ALL FOUR OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED -- McQueary, Paterno, Schultz, and Curley -- agree that McQueary reported something "inappropriate" to them that had happened "in the shower." (And McQueary and Paterno and Schultz all agree that McQueary went further than that.) And I don't know what in the hell "inappropriate" conduct "in the shower" would suggest if not something sexual. That's one problem with your argument.

The other problem is that Paterno testified that McQueary told him it was something sexual in nature in the shower. Paterno's testimony really kills this theory.


I totally agree with Ray here. But let's step back for a second. Even if McQueary was unclear about what exactly was happening between the Sandusky and the kid, isn't it alarming enough that they were showering together by themselves when basically no one else was in the building? McQueary was in the locker room only because he had left something behind. It was strange that anyone was in those showers at that moment. Then he sees Sandusky and a kid. Maybe it's because I am an elementary school teacher who is trained in spotting abuse and is a mandated reporter, but just these superficial facts alone are red flags. Paterno, Schultz and Curley are all educators or people in the business of education, and you'd think they'd be especially sensitive to mandated reporting issues and protecting youth.
   295. Andere Richtingen Posted: January 05, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4029433)
Then why wouldn't he just not say it? Why call a meeting with Paterno at his home on a Saturday morning in the first place?

Because he has a conscience and a sense of right and wrong, and he acted on it. People don't always do the absolutely right thing or the absolutely wrong thing, sometimes they do a half-assed job of doing the right thing. To McQueary, doing the right thing was telling an esteemed figure of moral authority, perhaps in a way that was sufficiently accurate, perhaps not, and being convinced that that person was going to take care of the matter thoroughly and correctly. Perhaps at the time he didn't consider the possibility that later he would hear about the weak official response to his report, and that that would mean the onus was on him to make a stink, which would have taken some serious guts and jeopardize his career. And when that came to be, it may not have been too hard to convince himself that he had done his job and it was no longer his responsibility.

Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier may all have engaged in similar types of rationalization, never explicitly saying to anyone that this is a big mess and we need to cover it up, but knowing full well that no one really wanted to know about it, and doing just enough that they could rationalize it and put it behind them and avoid a crapstorm. Of course, the crapstorm was inevitable. It's Edmund Burke's famous quote to a tee.

You can't really give credit to someone for doing such a half-assed job of doing the right thing, especially in this depraved instance. But I don't think I'm being unreasonably pessimistic in thinking that most people would have done the same, or less. We know of roughly a dozen people who surely knew something about what Sandusky was up to, and really it was only the school in Clinton County where someone really and truly went to the authorities (someone who I imagine was working in a job with very clearly spelled out guidelines regarding reporting child sexual abuse). Who knew enough to report something about Sandusky to the authorities, and never said a thing to anyone about it? I'm guessing it's multiples more than the dozen or so people we know about. I see the situation as less of an indictment of the known individuals who could have done something and didn't than an indictment of the human inclination to avoid doing things that are risky and difficult.

There's a huge lesson here for everyone, and I am tired of reading the armchair internet saints rant about it. I know that over the last two months I have spent a lot of time thinking about moral decisions I have made in my life where I did just enough of the right thing to keep my conscience quiet, and I am seeing my friends here in State College doing the same. Ironically, I am not seeing that sort of honest self-reflection much elsewhere.
   296. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 05, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4029440)
S- Paige: I think one difference you and Ray need to understand is that there is literally no training on mandated reporting, etc. in higher ed. Between GA and faculty positions, I've been there for 25 years, and can't recall a single discussion, much less training related to it, at all. Since nearly all the programs in higher ed relate to adults, there is simply not the focus on protecting youth that you find in K-12. Now, I would think with some of the camps and such that athletics and Student Affairs runs, they might have more knowledge and training. I don't know for sure. Schultz is a CFO. His direct contact with youths would be close to nonexistent.

And, I absolutely agree that Paterno, Schultz, Curley, people at Second Mile, etc. seemed to miss all sorts of warning sings, bells, buzzers, sirens, etc. But, that also gets you back to the myopia (or disbelief or whatever the appropriate term for it may be) that predators exploit. You saw this with Conlin, where parents learned of information within days of it happening, and did little. You see this in the reports from spouses of predators who were unaware. There's this unwillingness or inability to believe that it could be true. Sure, it's weird, but it's just "Jerry being Jerry, an eternal adolescent". "Maybe it's inappropriate, but it wasn't sexual, it's not a crime."

And then, you add in the power, money, the reputation Sandusky and Second Mile had. Even the mandated reporters at the high school for victim 1 encouraged his mom to think carefully about whether or not she wanted to report the abuse. It was her and her son, not the school officials, that really pressed for the report.

And from our more distant vantage points, that all seems absurd. Yet, time and time again, we see it happen, so I hesitate to say that I or others might not have acted in the same way if we were in the same situation. But, perhaps by focusing attention on that tendency, the next person will be less likely to ignore those red flags.


   297. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: January 05, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4029462)
GtwMA, these are all fair points, and I do admit that I probably don't have the proper perspective. The hardest thing for me to reconcile is Paterno's response, but then again this is based on a superficial knowledge of his work and position in the school. He works directly with young men, he's supposedly this great leader, he's the leader of the football program which is the major moneymaker and central focus in Happy Valley, and yet his response seems so weak. I understand that all of this is complicated by the taboo nature of the crime (heck, the DA even allowed Paterno not to get into graphic detail during his testimony, seemingly out of respect for the elder), but if he's a leader, if he's fundamentally decent as Poz states, how does he not use his power to protect young people?
   298. GotowarMissAgnes Posted: January 05, 2012 at 12:19 PM (#4029472)
Andere, your comment regarding the school reflects another reason for caution about thinking we know the full story. According to the presentment, Turchetta, the assistant principal, "...became aware of Victim 1's allegations regarding sexual assault by Sandusky when the boy's mother called the school to report it. Sandusky was barred from the school district attended by Victim 1 from that day forward and the matter was reported to authorities as mandated by law."

According to Victim 1's mother, however, the school principal tried to convince her and her son not to report their allegations against Sandusky to the police. Here's her account of events (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/penn-state-scandal-jerry-sandusky-victim-mother_n_1108979.html) :
========
"Mother One explained that her son was clearly troubled by Sandusky and wanted the school to talk with him. She also informed the high school principal, Karen Probst, that she didn't appreciate the school allowing Sandusky to take her son anywhere, and demanded that the school help to stop the visits.

But according to Mother One, the school acted as if there was nothing to be concerned about.

"The principal just waved it off, saying, 'You know, it's Jerry. He's around the school a lot and talks a lot with Second Mile kids. He has a heart of gold.' I was furious. They were defending this guy."

Mother One said she stopped arguing when she realized the principal wasn't willing to admit to any wrongdoing. She then asked that a counselor speak to her son, to see if he'd open up. The school agreed.

A few hours later, her phone rang. It was Probst, who she said asked her to drive to the school immediately.

Mother One already knew where this was going.

Reaching the counselor's office, she saw her son sitting in a chair and crying uncontrollably. He was, she recalled, in "an absolute meltdown."

Then, she said, the principal entered the room.

"The principal said that my son thought something inappropriate might have happened with Jerry. And of course, I instantly lost it."

As her son spoke between sobs, Mother One's worst fears were confirmed. Victim One said he was terrified, and that he thought things would only get worse.

Mother One had heard all she needed to. "Then we're going to call the police," she recalled saying. She looked at the counselor and principal, expecting them to nod, or to agree. Instead, she claims, they told her to think about it, and asked her how it would affect her family.

"I repeated the line three times. I said let's call the police. Right now. Let's do it. And they continued to stare at me."

As his mother described it, her son rocked in his chair and shook his head, looking as if he was about to have a nervous breakdown. Still sobbing, he shouted: "See! They don't believe me!"

Mother One said the counselor and the principal, both women and both employees of the public school system, didn't respond. They didn't offer condolences of any sort, she said.

"I remember saying, 'I'm not playing. This isn't funny. I mean seriously, look how upset he is! Something happened.'"

Mother One said the principal stood her ground.

"Jerry has a heart of gold, he's been around all these kids and you really should just go home and think about what this is going to do to your son and your family if you do that," Mother One recalled the principal saying.

"At that point, I had had enough. I told him that we were leaving. He grabbed his backpack and we just left the women sitting there."

As she drove home, trying to maintain her composure in front of her son, she said she called a close friend who worked with the state's Children's Youth Services program. The friend agreed to meet them at their home, and then took them to the Services center."

========
It was CYS who called the school and barred Sandusky, not the school calling CYS.

As the grand jury presentment reports and the interview with Mom 1 confirms, Sandusky, with Turchetta's OK and without parental permission, was being allowed to take Victim 1, as well as other kids, out of classes and off school grounds several times a week. And this was occurring not just at the high school, but at Victim 1's middle school, too (and I would venture a guess, possibly at other schools, too).

So, this version of events is quite different than what the presentment seems to say. And, even in places where mandated reporting and training are common, you saw this unwillingness to acknowledge and act on the red flags.

If you want to look for heroes here, it's that mom and that kid.

And if you're buying Andere, I'm drinking :)





   299. JPWF1313 Posted: January 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4029487)
According to Victim 1's mother, however, the school principal tried to convince her and her son not to report their allegations against Sandusky to the police. Here's her account of events (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/penn-state-scandal-jerry-sandusky-victim-mother_n_1108979.html) :


From what I've read the actions/inactions/behavior of the Principal and Vice-Principal at that High school are far worse than the PSU bigwigs... The Principal has seemingly gone quiet, but the Vice Principal gave quite a few interviews before his own behavior was reported on, The VP was the one who said that Sandusky was "needy" and "clingy"- it seems that in reality he was pals with Sandusky and was upset when Victim No 1 went to the police- told other students not to worry that Sandusky was going to "beat this" etc... and allegedly verbally attacked victim no 1 when the Grand Jury was convened... (But the VP essentially testified at the GJ that he thought Sandusky was creepy)

   300. Ray (RDP) Posted: January 05, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4029495)
S- Paige: I think one difference you and Ray need to understand is that there is literally no training on mandated reporting, etc. in higher ed. Between GA and faculty positions, I've been there for 25 years, and can't recall a single discussion, much less training related to it, at all. Since nearly all the programs in higher ed relate to adults, there is simply not the focus on protecting youth that you find in K-12. Now, I would think with some of the camps and such that athletics and Student Affairs runs, they might have more knowledge and training. I don't know for sure. Schultz is a CFO. His direct contact with youths would be close to nonexistent.


Thanks. I appreciate your comments on this, being someone on the ground in higher education, and will accept them.

Question: Is it a distinction that these people aren't merely professors or faculty, but are very high up in the hierarchy? I understand that they deal with students who are adults, but can we expect none of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier to understand the mandatory reporting law? A head coach, an AD, someone who "oversees" the campus police... Could Spanier have risen to the role of president of a major university and not have any inkling that there is a mandatory reporting law in his state?

Regardless (and I realize we're discussing something separate but just for the record), I still don't see how that excuses Paterno. I never argued that he had a legal duty to report it to the state authorities; I argued that he had a moral duty.
Page 3 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(93 - 10:32am, Sep 02)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(74 - 10:32am, Sep 02)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(990 - 10:31am, Sep 02)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogBPP: Why do people still think Jack Morris pitched to the score?
(1 - 10:28am, Sep 02)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(14 - 10:26am, Sep 02)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(7990 - 10:24am, Sep 02)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(8 - 10:23am, Sep 02)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get blotto

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(113 - 10:01am, Sep 02)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-2-2014
(9 - 10:01am, Sep 02)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogHBT: Jorge Soler with an extra-base hit in each of his first five games
(4 - 9:44am, Sep 02)
Last: salvomania

NewsblogTrevor Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction seems inevitable
(15 - 9:43am, Sep 02)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogNo-hitter! Four Phillies pitchers combine to blank the Braves
(18 - 9:34am, Sep 02)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6359 - 9:32am, Sep 02)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogAstros Fire Bo Porter
(60 - 9:12am, Sep 02)
Last: Ron J2

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1957 Ballot
(11 - 8:43am, Sep 02)
Last: Tubbs & Minnie Miñoso don't fear Sid Monge

Page rendered in 1.3421 seconds
55 querie(s) executed