Paterno FINALLY retiring in 3....2....1.....

[Aten]

You can't fire him for that.

I never said he COULDN'T be fired

Die.

[Scott Dierking]

What people have kind of insinuated today is that the program (some players included) pretty much knew what was going on.

3 players were suspended in 2005 (Dan Connor was one of them) who were suspended due to placing "harassing phone calls" to a former assistant coach. These calls were over a period of several months.

The speculation is that the calls were to Sandusky.

EDIT-Connor has admitted it was NOT Sandusky. Supposedly it was D-Line Coach Sarra

[Scott Dierking]

Die.

You can fire anybody you want at any time, obviously.

But, with this Board being litigation scared (I imagine), they will pick their targets carefully.

Again, I hope he is gone.

[CTM]

Haven't followed this at all, but does it have anything to do with drafting Blair Thomas? Kylie Brady?

[dbatesman]

That's not a reason why they 'can't' fire him. That's your guess as to why they haven't yet. There's some applicable code of conduct; I dunno what it is specifically, whether GAs are part of some CB unit or whatever, but there was definitely some kind of affirmative obligation for McQueary as the only staff on scene witnessing a sex crime in progress to do something beyond running it up the flagpole to his superiors.

They tried, but PSU has some weird semi-private status, so the reversal of the NYU decision hit them pretty hard. Regardless, I can't imagine anyone pursuing a grievance on his behalf, or any arbitrator seriously entertaining it. The sports GAs never sign cards anyway.

[Sharrow]

Paterno and McQueary are very much involved.

McQueary says that he told Jo about the rape in the shower. Jo says he told Curley and Curley says Jo told him that it was only "horsing around."

A friend of mine told me that Paterno said that McQueary only told him that Sandusky was acting inappropriately in the shower naked w/him, not that he was being raped. I haven't been able to find any articles or anything saying that though so it might not be true. But it would make a more sense if that was the case, imo. McQueary might have been reluctant to tell him the whole truth because he never did anything to stop it when it happened. Just thinking about it, if somebody told you that they saw a young boy being molested, your first question might be "what did you do about it?" and his answer would have been "nothing".

[rillo]

Is there any evidence to suggest that Sandusky was pimping the kids to donors? This is the only reason I can think of allowing Sandusky to stay around.

[sourceworx]

Is there any evidence to suggest that Sandusky was pimping the kids to donors? This is the only reason I can think of allowing Sandusky to stay around.

This is a stretch, but maybe one of these rich donors is someone powerful. And maybe said donor is behind the old D.A.'s disappearance in the late 90's. And maybe everybody at PSU kept quiet out of fear of said donor.

I know it sounds like something out of a movie, but after everything that's happened this past week would it shock you if it was true?

[rillo]

This is a stretch, but maybe one of these rich donors is someone powerful. And maybe said donor is behind the old D.A.'s disappearance in the late 90's. And maybe everybody at PSU kept quiet out of fear of said donor.

I know it sounds like something out of a movie, but after everything that's happened this past week would it shock you if it was true?

No, I wouldn't doubt it at all, this type of stuff happens a lot actually. Did a google search on this rumor and apparently the reporter who broke this scandal (back in April) is also reporting about this pimping.

In April, Pittsburgh radio host Mark Madden wrote a story revealing Penn State for much of the cover-up of Jerry Sandusky's alleged child rape that has been exposed in the past week. While it didn't raise many eyebrows back then, six months later it looks to be incredibly accurate.

On Thursday morning, just hours after legendary head coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier were fired by the school's board of trustees, Madden was asked on WEEI's The Dennis and Callahan Show what he believes the next piece of news will be.

What he said was twice as shocking as anything that's been released thus far.

"I can give you a rumor and I can give you something I think might happen," Madden told John Dennis and Gerry Callahan. "I hear there's a rumor that there will be a more shocking development from the Second Mile Foundation -- and hold on to your stomachs, boys, this is gross, I will use the only language I can -- that Jerry Sandusky and Second Mile were pimping out young boys to rich donors. That was being investigated by two prominent columnists even as I speak."

After the news spread, Madden later explained via Twitter why he went public with the rumors.

"I normally abhor giving RUMORS credence," Madden wrote. "But whole Sandusky scandal started out as a RUMOR. It gets deeper and more disgusting all the time. One of state's top columnists investigating. That adds credence. I am NOT rumor's original source. [Why does] Sandusky deserve benefit of doubt?"

Madden also spoke more definitively on Dennis and Callahan to the cover-up efforts at the school and beyond that he expects will be made public soon.

"The other thing I think that may eventually become uncovered, and I talked about this in my original article back in April, is that I think they'll find out that Jerry Sandusky was told that he had to retire in exchange for a cover-up," Madden said. "If you look at the timeline, that makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

"My opinion is when Sandusky quit, everybody knew -- not just at Penn State," Madden added. "I think it was a very poorly kept secret about college football in general, and that is why he never coached in college football again and retired at the relatively young age of 55. [That's] young for a coach, certainly."

http://www.nesn.com/2011/...rs-says-mark-madden.html

[Gainzo]

Couple of things here.

Penn State hasn't been a football power for a long time. They win their home games against Akron. Good for them.

Paterno should have retired a decade ago,

[PatriotReign37]

A friend of mine told me that Paterno said that McQueary only told him that Sandusky was acting inappropriately in the shower naked w/him, not that he was being raped. I haven't been able to find any articles or anything saying that though so it might not be true. But it would make a more sense if that was the case, imo. McQueary might have been reluctant to tell him the whole truth because he never did anything to stop it when it happened. Just thinking about it, if somebody told you that they saw a young boy being molested, your first question might be "what did you do about it?" and his answer would have been "nothing".

Get a load of this.

http://sports.myway.com/news/11102011/v3936.html

Then 28, McQueary was "distraught" after witnessing the alleged 2002 assault, according to the indictment. Yet it appears he may have continued to participate in fundraising events with Sandusky - including one held less than a month later.

Sandusky was a coach at a March 28, 2002, flag-football fundraiser for the Easter Seals of Central Pennsylvania, and McQueary and other Penn State staff members participated by either playing or signing autographs, according to a "Letter of special thanks" published in the Centre Daily Times.

The paper also reported that McQueary was scheduled to play in The Second Mile Celebrity Golf Classic in 2002 and 2003. The Second Mile is the charity Sandusky founded in 1997 to provide education and life skills to almost 100,000 at-risk kids each year.

[Sharrow]

Get a load of this.

http://sports.myway....2011/v3936.html

Then 28, McQueary was "distraught" after witnessing the alleged 2002 assault, according to the indictment. Yet it appears he may have continued to participate in fundraising events with Sandusky - including one held less than a month later.

Sandusky was a coach at a March 28, 2002, flag-football fundraiser for the Easter Seals of Central Pennsylvania, and McQueary and other Penn State staff members participated by either playing or signing autographs, according to a "Letter of special thanks" published in the Centre Daily Times.

The paper also reported that McQueary was scheduled to play in The Second Mile Celebrity Golf Classic in 2002 and 2003. The Second Mile is the charity Sandusky founded in 1997 to provide education and life skills to almost 100,000 at-risk kids each year.

Yeah, it definitely doesn't add up.

[Bugg]

More weirdness,

Sandusky's parents operated a foster home.

Sandusky "canot have kids", bur adopted and raised foster children himself. There are hints galore that this guy was way too involved with young kids.

Sandusky was unfamilair with another Gospel passage-Matthew 18, Verse 6

"But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."

From Sports Ilustrated

December 06, 1982

Linebackers Are Jerry Sandusky's Business, But Not His Only Business

N. Brooks Clark

Three decades ago Art Sandusky was a conductor on the streetcars of Washington, Pa. and, with his wife, Evie, the owner and operator of a hot dog stand. But when the streetcars were shut down, the Sanduskys found that pushing frozen custard and foot-long red-hots in the summer months wasn't providing the wherewithal to pay their bills the year round. So they signed up as live-in directors of the Brownson House, a local recreation center that was on the verge of being closed. After the Sanduskys and their 9-year-old son, Jerry, moved in, they persuaded the town fathers to keep Brownson House going. That was back in 1953, and they have been there ever since. This goes a long way toward explaining why their son, now the Penn State football team's defensive coordinator, is, at 38, the founder of The Second Mile, a charitable organization that recently opened a group home for six troubled boys in the State College, Pa. area. The home's name comes from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5:41—"And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain."

For 12 years Sandusky has been in charge of coaching linebackers at Penn State, a job roughly equivalent to teaching piano at Juilliard. A defensive end for the Nittany Lions from 1963 to '66, he became an assistant coach at Linebacker U. in 1969—in time to counsel 11 future pros, six of them All-Americas.

In 1977 Sandusky decided to begin writing a manual on his specialty, entitled Developing Linebackers the Penn State Way. He also decided that any profits would go to The Second Mile.

Sandusky and his wife, Dottie, who couldn't have children of their own, adopted a son in 1969. Since then they have adopted four more children—current ages five through 19—and have helped raise three foster children. For a time they were a host family each summer for children placed by the Fresh Air Fund of New York City. "After we had taken in some foster children," says Dottie, "we saw the opportunities that some kids just hadn't had. But we'd gotten to the point where we couldn't take in any more, so Jerry started thinking about starting a group home. The book seemed like a good opportunity to get it off the ground." (Since Developing Linebackers was published in 1981, it has netted about $15,000.)

The Sanduskys incorporated The Second Mile in 1977. With legal help donated by a Penn State professor, they were granted tax-exempt status, and by 1980 they had raised enough money, $64,000, to buy 20 acres of farmland two miles from Beaver Stadium. Several businesses agreed to chip in the supplies for building a house, and a local contractor agreed to build it for the cost of his labor.

Houseparents were hired last spring, and The Second Mile should have its full complement of six boys by early winter. With luck, says Ron Coder, the executive director of the home, another will be started in three years.

"Naive me," says Sandusky, "sitting back there five years ago saying, 'We're going to start a group home.' If I'd sat down then and said, 'It's going to take this and that, and this many people will have to be involved,' I probably wouldn't have done it. The toughest thing has been selling something that didn't exist. I think it will be easier now that we can say, 'Look, there it is: a home and a family for six kids who didn't have either one.' "

Sandusky's efforts in behalf of the home have come on top of his daily business of being one of the top defensive minds in America. He inherited the title of Mr. Linebacker from Dan Radakovich, who left Penn State for the University of Cincinnati in February of 1970. Sandusky has had a hand in developing All-Americas Jack Ham (1970), Charlie Zapiec (1971), John Skorupan (1972), Ed O'Neil (1973), Greg Buttle (1975) and Kurt Allerman (1976).

Part of Sandusky's success obviously stems from the Penn State linebacker tradition, which almost assures a fresh supply of top talent every year. That talent then gets top training from Sandusky. "The biggest thing is that he's a real technician," says Allerman, now a St. Louis Cardinal. "Day after day he stresses the fundamentals: keeping your shoulders square to the line when you move, using your hands to protect yourself from the low block and playing off blocks instead of running around them."

"He has great teaching ability," says Penn State Head Coach Joe Paterno. "He has a gift for setting up the drills that will teach the kids to execute all the things we ask them to do as linebackers."

Sandusky attributes much of the success he has had to the character of the players he works with: "They're mostly leaders, kind of outgoing. Buttle, for one [now a New York Jet], kind of owned the place from the day he arrived. I told Greg he didn't know how slow he was—and he didn't. That's why he played so well, and that's why his teammates played so well. They played up to his expectations of them, and among other things, they beat Pitt 7-6 in his senior year when Pitt had Tony Dorsett."

Growing up in Brownson House, Sandusky had observed the same thing about troubled children. "So much of what happens depends on the care and concern that people show for them," he says. "I saw so many kids come through there who never really had a family or anybody to care about them or give them any guidance at all. It always bothered me."

It hasn't bothered Sandusky that The Second Mile thus far has kept him from leaving Penn State. "Many people have talked to me about hiring him," says Paterno, "but Jerry's been reluctant to talk to them because of all the commitments he has in this area." A couple of head-coaching jobs at the college level have come and gone, as well as inquiries from Oakland and Tampa Bay about interviewing Sandusky to become a pro assistant. "A long time ago Jerry really wanted to be a head coach," says Dottie, "but now there are so many things going that he never mentions it anymore."

"I'm concerned about his future," says Paterno, who spent 16 years as an assistant to Rip Engle at Penn State. "I'm proud of everything that he and Dottie have done, and I certainly wouldn't like to lose him, but I'd hate to see him lose his chance to be a head coach."

"The timing hasn't been right for me or my family," says Sandusky. "It might be someday. We believe the saying, 'It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it.' Dottie and I were disappointed when we couldn't have children, but we took it as a positive thing and it gave us an opportunity to do more."

"It's the way he's always been," says Sandusky's mother, Evie. "I guess it's his nature that he's never quite happy unless he's helping somebody else."

[Jet27]

No, I wouldn't doubt it at all, this type of stuff happens a lot actually. Did a google search on this rumor and apparently the reporter who broke this scandal (back in April) is also reporting about this pimping.

http://www.nesn.com/...ark-madden.html

WTF...this gets sicker and sicker by the day....When the truth all comes out I hope all of the sumbags in involved with this get exactly what they deserve. They should go to prison to get what they gave to those young boys. The F'en scumbags!

[Boozer76]

So now McQueary will not even be at the game. So essentially Penn State is continuing to employ a coach that won't even actually be a coach? Look, I don't condone death threats but you can not possibly tell me that if McQueary didn't have some kind of chip in his pocket that he would still be around. There is no logical reason they are keeping him around otherwise. Don't give me this legal crap that he could sue the University because they could release him under the same grounds that they released Paterno under. The ONLY reason PSU is keeping McQueary around is because he can probably incriminate everyone, most notably Paterno, and open them up to criminal charges. I have said it countless times now but does anyone really believe that McQueary witnessed what he saw and then only reported it as touching and horsing around to Paterno? He told Paterno exactly what he saw, and I am sure he probably told others as well. That makes Paterno and any other person criminally negligent and would destroy that institution for years.

[Jet27]

So now McQueary will not even be at the game. So essentially Penn State is continuing to employ a coach that won't even actually be a coach? Look, I don't condone death threats but you can not possibly tell me that if McQueary didn't have some kind of chip in his pocket that he would still be around. There is no logical reason they are keeping him around otherwise. Don't give me this legal crap that he could sue the University because they could release him under the same grounds that they released Paterno under. The ONLY reason PSU is keeping McQueary around is because he can probably incriminate everyone, most notably Paterno, and open them up to criminal charges. I have said it countless times now but does anyone really believe that McQueary witnessed what he saw and then only reported it as touching and horsing around to Paterno? He told Paterno exactly what he saw, and I am sure he probably told others as well. That makes Paterno and any other person criminally negligent and would destroy that institution for years.

I agree 100%..I just hope McQueary doesnt go "missing"...all of the sumbags need to be exposed for the scumbags they are!

[Scott Dierking]

So now McQueary will not even be at the game. So essentially Penn State is continuing to employ a coach that won't even actually be a coach? Look, I don't condone death threats but you can not possibly tell me that if McQueary didn't have some kind of chip in his pocket that he would still be around. There is no logical reason they are keeping him around otherwise. Don't give me this legal crap that he could sue the University because they could release him under the same grounds that they released Paterno under. The ONLY reason PSU is keeping McQueary around is because he can probably incriminate everyone, most notably Paterno, and open them up to criminal charges. I have said it countless times now but does anyone really believe that McQueary witnessed what he saw and then only reported it as touching and horsing around to Paterno? He told Paterno exactly what he saw, and I am sure he probably told others as well. That makes Paterno and any other person criminally negligent and would destroy that institution for years.

At this point. I don't see how the University stands to hold any ground with McQueary by holding an allegiance to him at this time.

M<cQueary will certainly be called to testify in the criminal case, and he would be an absolute idiot if he perjured himself because PSU allowed him to remian on staff through the final 3 games. That does not seem to make sense.

Supposedly, when McQueary met with Paterno to tell him about the incident. McQueary's dad was with him. So it will be interesting to see how the stories corroborate.

[Sperm Edwards]

So now McQueary will not even be at the game. So essentially Penn State is continuing to employ a coach that won't even actually be a coach? Look, I don't condone death threats but you can not possibly tell me that if McQueary didn't have some kind of chip in his pocket that he would still be around. There is no logical reason they are keeping him around otherwise. Don't give me this legal crap that he could sue the University because they could release him under the same grounds that they released Paterno under. The ONLY reason PSU is keeping McQueary around is because he can probably incriminate everyone, most notably Paterno, and open them up to criminal charges. I have said it countless times now but does anyone really believe that McQueary witnessed what he saw and then only reported it as touching and horsing around to Paterno? He told Paterno exactly what he saw, and I am sure he probably told others as well. That makes Paterno and any other person criminally negligent and would destroy that institution for years.

+1

Any theoretical wrongful termination case McQueery brought would cost them peanuts compared to the upcoming civil cases with the real victims.

[Boozer76]

At this point. I don't see how the University stands to hold any ground with McQueary by holding an allegiance to him at this time.

M<cQueary will certainly be called to testify in the criminal case, and he would be an absolute idiot if he perjured himself because PSU allowed him to remian on staff through the final 3 games. That does not seem to make sense.

Supposedly, when McQueary met with Paterno to tell him about the incident. McQueary's dad was with him. So it will be interesting to see how the stories corroborate.

Scott,

Right now they are trying to limit the immediate damage as much as humanly possible. They know at some point McQueary will have to testify, and I do agree he would not perjur himself. But, if they let McQueary go the same night as Paterno he could have easily turned around and tried to salvage at least a semblance of his image and his potential to ever get a job somewhere again by stating to the press that he unequivocably told Paterno and anyone else within earshot that he witnessed an undoubted rape. There's a ton of fallout right now, and there's a ton more coming, but anything PSU can do to defer and plan for future fallout to protect the University will be done. I truly believe if McQueary gives his account to what happened that night we will see countless criminal charges being levied against PSU coaches and officials, especially Paterno.

[Bugg]

+1

Any theoretical wrongful termination case McQueery brought would cost them peanuts compared to the upcoming civil cases with the real victims.

While McQueary is a PSU employee they can restrict to whom he talks. ANd it seems he is the keeper of some very bad secrets.

[Scott Dierking]

Scott,

Right now they are trying to limit the immediate damage as much as humanly possible. They know at some point McQueary will have to testify, and I do agree he would not perjur himself. But, if they let McQueary go the same night as Paterno he could have easily turned around and tried to salvage at least a semblance of his image and his potential to ever get a job somewhere again by stating to the press that he unequivocably told Paterno and anyone else within earshot that he witnessed an undoubted rape. There's a ton of fallout right now, and there's a ton more coming, but anything PSU can do to defer and plan for future fallout to protect the University will be done. I truly believe if McQueary gives his account to what happened that night we will see countless criminal charges being levied against PSU coaches and officials, especially Paterno.

McQueary has already told the Grand jury what he witnessed that night and told them what he told Paterno. For him to change his story now, would be idiocy and he would suffer from all kinds of legal ramifications.

[Aten]

I have said it countless times now but does anyone really believe that McQueary witnessed what he saw and then only reported it as touching and horsing around to Paterno?

Yes, actually. That is absolutely what I believe happened. Of the possible explanations -- mass miscommunication, mass conspiracy, or single lapse in the game of telephone -- the last is eminently the most plausible until a lot more is known. McQueary is the choke point, he acted in a calculated manner upon seeing what he saw so it is totally reasonable to expect that his account to Paterno was equally calculated, and the ineffectual follow-up, while still unforgivable, is a lot easier to understand if you assume what Paterno was told wasn't rape but more along the lines of creepy uncle you don't leave alone with the kids stuff.

[Scott Dierking]

Yes, actually. That is absolutely what I believe happened. Of the possible explanations -- mass miscommunication, mass conspiracy, or single lapse in the game of telephone -- the last is eminently the most plausible until a lot more is known. McQueary is the choke point, he acted in a calculated manner upon seeing what he saw so it is totally reasonable to expect that his account to Paterno was equally calculated, and the ineffectual follow-up, while still unforgivable, is a lot easier to understand if you assume what Paterno was told wasn't rape but more along the lines of creepy uncle you don't leave alone with the kids stuff.

Regardless, Paterno and others are culpable morally because they were aware of other Sandusky inappropriateness (see 1998), if not more.

It should not matter whether it was rape, or just fondling. They are both morally reprehensible.

Too many dots connected for smart men not realize for what was going on. I wish it wasn't so, but there is no other way to think it.

[Boozer76]

McQueary has already told the Grand jury what he witnessed that night and told them what he told Paterno. For him to change his story now, would be idiocy and he would suffer from all kinds of legal ramifications.

His story wouldn't change. The grand jury report as follows:

He (McQueary) saw a naked boy who's age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wal, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky............the next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's (McQueary) report at his home on a Saturday morning.....Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy..........

Again, there is a disconnect here. The report leaves it open to some ambiguity. "he reported what he had seen" and paterno testifying that he reported "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". Paterno later stated he did not understand it was as serious as a full on anal rape. So where then lies the truth? When McQueary stated what he saw, did that mean he clearly told Paterno it was an anal rape? If so, why did Paterno seem to soften the blow to fondling or something of a sexual nature? Why did he later deny that he knew the incident was as serious as it was?

[Bugg]

His story wouldn't change. The grand jury report as follows:

He (McQueary) saw a naked boy who's age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wal, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky............the next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's (McQueary) report at his home on a Saturday morning.....Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy..........

Again, there is a disconnect here. The report leaves it open to some ambiguity. "he reported what he had seen" and paterno testifying that he reported "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". Paterno later stated he did not understand it was as serious as a full on anal rape. So where then lies the truth? When McQueary stated what he saw, did that mean he clearly told Paterno it was an anal rape? If so, why did Paterno seem to soften the blow to fondling or something of a sexual nature? Why did he later deny that he knew the incident was as serious as it was?

Paterno is full of sh*t.

He was also in 1998. And in 2002. And every time he allowed Sandusky on campus from the day he was let go. This is a guy who prided himself on knowing what his players were up to 24/7. And yet we are to believe in multiple in instances with this monster who was on campus continously since the 1960s as a player and his assistant it slipped his mind? Bullsh*t.It's not plausible. Unless the whole persona Paterno showed to the world (andwas fed to the public by a complaint media) was a lie. And he was a doddering old fool the whole time.

[Scott Dierking]

His story wouldn't change. The grand jury report as follows:

He (McQueary) saw a naked boy who's age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wal, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky............the next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's (McQueary) report at his home on a Saturday morning.....Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy..........

Again, there is a disconnect here. The report leaves it open to some ambiguity. "he reported what he had seen" and paterno testifying that he reported "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". Paterno later stated he did not understand it was as serious as a full on anal rape. So where then lies the truth? When McQueary stated what he saw, did that mean he clearly told Paterno it was an anal rape? If so, why did Paterno seem to soften the blow to fondling or something of a sexual nature? Why did he later deny that he knew the incident was as serious as it was?

A jury will not even see a need differentiate. Rape or fondling do not matter in the terms of reporting. They are both WRONG. In terms of culpability to to report to proper authorities, they are the same.

What, if it was only fondling, they are off the hook? Of course not.

Where it matters is for Sandusky, and to what lengths he is prosecuted-and I would doubt he even wants this taken to trial. He will plea bargain, if he has any sense

[Boozer76]

His story wouldn't change. The grand jury report as follows:

He (McQueary) saw a naked boy who's age he estimated to be 10 years old, with his hands up against the wal, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky............the next morning, a Saturday, the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's where he reported what he had seen.

Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's (McQueary) report at his home on a Saturday morning.....Paterno called Tim Curley, Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy..........

Again, there is a disconnect here. The report leaves it open to some ambiguity. "he reported what he had seen" and paterno testifying that he reported "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature". Paterno later stated he did not understand it was as serious as a full on anal rape. So where then lies the truth? When McQueary stated what he saw, did that mean he clearly told Paterno it was an anal rape? If so, why did Paterno seem to soften the blow to fondling or something of a sexual nature? Why did he later deny that he knew the incident was as serious as it was?

And for the record there are those who state Paterno reported the incident to campus police, thus satisfying his obligation both legally and morally. To them I present this:

Department of Public Welfare and Children Youth Services local and state records were subpoenaed by the Grand Jury; University Police records were also subpoenaed. The records reveal that the 2002 incident was never reported to any officials, in contravention pf Pennsylvania law.

[Scott Dierking]

And for the record there are those who state Paterno reported the incident to campus police, thus satisfying his obligation both legally and morally. To them I present this:

Department of Public Welfare and Children Youth Services local and state records were subpoenaed by the Grand Jury; University Police records were also subpoenaed. The records reveal that the 2002 incident was never reported to any officials, in contravention pf Pennsylvania law.

Paterno never stated that he presented to University police. he reported that he presented to Curley. Which was the very least of his obligations.

From the legal stand point, he upheld his obligations, from what we are told. Obviously, morally he was wrong.

Let's see if the feds get involved and hold his obligations more fully.

[Boozer76]

A jury will not even see a need differentiate. Rape or fondling do not matter in the terms of reporting. They are both WRONG. In terms of culpability to to report to proper authorities, they are the same. What, if it was only fondling, they are off the hook? Of course not. Where it matters is for Sandusky, and to what lengths he is prosecuted-and I would doubt he even wants this taken to trial. He will plea bargain, if he has any sense

Of course they're both wrong. But if there's a clear distinction that Paterno in any way tried to deliberately soften the blow of the incident I feel he could be criminally culpable.

[Scott Dierking]

Of course they're both wrong. But if there's a clear distinction that Paterno in any way tried to deliberately soften the blow of the incident I feel he could be criminally culpable.

There does absolutely need to be clarification on what was told to Paterno, and what Paterno told Curley, in turn.

I would assume that this is already in record of the Grand Jury?????

[Boozer76]

Paterno never stated that he presented to University police. he reported that he presented to Curley. Which was the very least of his obligations.

From the legal stand point, he upheld his obligations, from what we are told. Obviously, morally he was wrong.

Let's see if the feds get involved and hold his obligations more fully.

I was directing that more towards the reports and claims in defense of him from his supporters and blind students that he did go to the police. He clearly did not. Nor did he follow up with anything. The bottom line is Joe Paterno was told that a boy was raped in his facility. He reported it to the AD in a different manner than it was told to him, and then accepted the school's response that they ban Sandusky from bringing Second Mile children on campus again without then reporting it to the police. Morally reprehensible, and in my opinion that should make him criminally liable as well as everyone else involved.

[Scott Dierking]

I was directing that more towards the reports and claims in defense of him from his supporters and blind students that he did go to the police. He clearly did not. Nor did he follow up with anything. The bottom line is Joe Paterno was told that a boy was raped in his facility. He reported it to the AD in a different manner than it was told to him, and then accepted the school's response that they ban Sandusky from bringing Second Mile children on campus again without then reporting it to the police. Morally reprehensible, and in my opinion that should make him criminally liable as well as everyone else involved.

Not entirely.

It is NOT clear at this time that what Paterno reported to Curley was different than what McQueary brought to him. I have not seen that reported, and therein lies a piece of the quandry.

If Joe HAD gone to University police, he would be a lot less culpable at this point (not entirely though). I had not seen anyone supporting that Paterno had gone to the police.

[Boozer76]

Not entirely. It is NOT clear at this time that what Paterno reported to Curley was different than what McQueary brought to him. I have not seen that reported, and therein lies a piece of the quandry. If Joe HAD gone to University police, he would be a lot less culpable at this point (not entirely though). I had not seen anyone supporting that Paterno had gone to the police.

True, which comes back to my point about PSU not firing McQueary. It's not 100% clear what Paterno reported was different than what McQueary reported because the Grand Jury report leaves a little question when it just states McQueary "reported what he saw". They fire him and he tells the press that "reporting what he saw" was him clearly stating that Sandusky was anally raping a child in his showers it will explode in the headlines.

[Scott Dierking]

True, which comes back to my point about PSU not firing McQueary. It's not 100% clear what Paterno reported was different than what McQueary reported because the Grand Jury report leaves a little question when it just states McQueary "reported what he saw". They fire him and he tells the press that "reporting what he saw" was him clearly stating that Sandusky was anally raping a child in his showers it will explode in the headlines.

I would have to be pretty sure that the Grand Jury has that testimony, because, how can they really not? How can you not ask-What did you tell Mr Paterno, in detail? And in return, how can they not ask Paterno, what did you tell Mr Curley?

The Grand Jury said that bot McQueary and Paterno's testimony were "Credible", so you have to think they are relatively the same. This is where Curley and Schultz fell in trouble.

Anybody who changes their story at this point will be in bigger trouble.

[Scott Dierking]

This is an excellent accounting up to date-BTW-This publication has been on top of this all the way

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html

A Patriot-News Special Report: Who knew what about Jerry Sandusky? There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995

Published: Friday, November 11, 2011, 12:19 AM Updated: Friday, November 11, 2011, 8:02 AM

By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News

Follow

99

ShareEmailPrint

What did they know and when did they know it?

Enlarge

ANDY COLWELL, The Patriot-News

Former Penn State coaching legend Jerry Sandusky is arraigned on sex abuse charges Saturday, Nov. 5 in State College, Pa.

Jerry Sandusky arraignment

gallery

(11 photos)

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The

Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case

has already cost the jobs of football coach

Joe Paterno

and

university President Graham Spanier.

State and federal investigators continue to unravel the case and might bring additional charges.

More than one tip has already come into the tipline that police have set up for potential victims.

But in the end, it’s going to come down to credibility. Stories contradict each other. Grand jury testimony clashes.

Who was telling the truth? Who was trying to keep the truth silent?

And what part did that silence play in the fact that Sandusky is alleged to have sexually assaulted young boys for 10 years after the first boy stepped forward?

In early 2010, before

The Patriot-News broke the story of the Sandusky investigation

, the newspaper confronted Spanier and asked him if he was aware of a grand jury investigation into Sandusky. His answer was no.

By his own testimony before the grand jury, Spanier knew as early as 2002 that Sandusky and a young boy had been witnessed “horsing around” by a staff member in the locker room of the football building.

It’s not clear if Spanier also knew about a six-week investigation by his university’s police force that centered around similar touching in a shower in 1998 that never led to charges.

However, now-resigned Vice President Gary Schultz, who was in charge of the campus police in 1998 and in 2002, did know about both reports, and in his grand jury testimony, he acknowledged that they were similar — they both involved young boys and allegations of sexual misconduct in a shower at the football building.

View full size

JOE HERMITT, The Patriot-News, file

Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary.

Right now, the case against Schultz and Athletic Director Tim Curley — both charged with perjury and failure to report a crime — hinges mainly on the word of that eyewitness, then-graduate student Mike McQueary. McQueary is now a Penn State assistant football coach.

McQueary is a guy who once stepped in and broke up a player-related knife fight in a campus dining hall — a fight police admit could have been very ugly. But this week, he is getting blasted by the public for doing too little.

That same public sentiment led to an abrupt exit for legendary coach Paterno and Spanier.

But if gossip, rumor and speculation have been rampant this week about Spanier, Paterno and McQueary, the facts are more complicated — and much more disturbing.

EARLY CONCERNS

The earliest documented report of possible abuse at the hands of Sandusky is in 1995, when his now-legally adopted son was still a teenage foster child in his home.

The adoption file for Matt Sandusky, who had a different name at the time, contains letters of concern from his mother to children and youth officials and to a Centre County judge.

Matt’s biological mother, Debra Long, testified before the grand jury.

Matt, 33, is not one of the victims in the grand jury presentment, but he did testify before the grand jury.

Sandusky’s attorney, Joe Amendola, said Long is upset with Sandusky for helping her son and her allegations are not based in fact. Matt went to live with the Sandusky family after he was caught setting fire to a barn in 1995.

Children and Youth Services placed him with the Sandusky family at Jerry Sandusky’s request. He knew Matt through The Second Mile.

In his book, “Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story” several pages are devoted to Matt.

“He became an instant challenge for me,” Sandusky writes.

Debra Long was allowed to visit her son only one-half day per month after he went to live with the Sanduskys.

About four months after he went to live with Jerry, Matt attempted suicide with a girl who was also staying at Sandusky’s house.

“The probation department has some serious concerns about the juvenile’s safety and his current progress in placement with the Sandusky family,” wrote Terry L. Trude, a school-based probation officer, days after the suicide attempt.

The letter, addressed to Centre County Judge David Grine, also said Long was concerned about Matt’s safety and mental condition, and asked that Matt go to a different foster family.

Trude finally recommended that Matt’s placement in the Sandusky house be reviewed within two months.

The night of the suicide attempt, Matt wrote a letter to the probation officer dealing with his case.

It read, in part: “I would like to be placed back with the Sanduskys. I feel that they have supported me even when I have messed up. They are a loving caring group of people. I love both my biological family and the Sandusky family.”

The day Jerry Sandusky was arrested

, Matt brought his kids over to Jerry’s house. The mother of Matt’s children almost immediately went to court to prevent future visits. A judge’s order now prevents Sandusky from having unsupervised contact or overnight visits with his grandchildren.

THE FIRST VICTIM TO ASK FOR HELP

The travesty and tragedy of botched attempts to investigate Jerry Sandusky began in 1998.

Though the grand jury indictment includes four previous victims, an 11-year old boy in 1998 was the first to come forward. He is called Victim Six in the grand jury presentment.

The boy told police that Sandusky had showered naked with him. A second boy was in the showers at the time, but did not testify before the grand jury.

View full size

AP Photo/Centre Daily Times, Nabil K. Mark, 2005

Former Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar

Then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar set up a sting in the mother’s home. Sandusky had requested to meet with the mom, and Gricar had officers hide in another room and listen to their conversation.

One of those officers was Detective Ron Schreffler, the lead investigator in the case.

According to the presentment, Sandusky asked the mom for forgiveness.

“I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness from you. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead,” Sandusky said.

Gricar knew the results of the sting before he made his decision not to prosecute.

The Centre County Office of Children and Youth Services also was investigating that case.

Investigator Jerry Lauro said this week he didn’t feel there was enough evidence for abuse charges solely based on interviews with the boys.

“At that time, the information that we had wasn’t sufficient enough to substantiate a case,” Lauro said. “I don’t want [the mother)] to think we didn’t believe their kid back then. We did, but we didn’t have enough.”

Lauro said Schreffler never told him the details of Sandusky’s confession at the victim’s house.

“I remember my last conversation with him concerning him hiding in that room,” Lauro said. “He didn’t tell me details. All he said was, ‘There’s nothing to it — we’re going to close our case.’ And I said, ‘That’s fine, I’m going to close my case, too.”

They never had another call regarding Sandusky, Lauro said.

Gricar disappeared suddenly in 2005. He remained missing and was declared dead earlier this year. Tony Gricar, family spokesman, said his uncle had developed a “bitter taste” for the football program and Paterno.

“So, I wouldn’t imagine he’d give favorable treatment to anyone associated with the team for any reason,” he said.

Schreffler has repeatedly declined to comment on the case.

According to the presentment, Lauro testified that he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky. Sandusky admitted hugging the boy in the shower and admitted it was wrong, Lauro testified.

WHAT JANITORS SAY THEY SAW

Another golden opportunity to report and investigate Sandusky for child sexual abuse came just two years later, in 2000.

A group of janitors were cleaning the locker rooms late at night in the Penn State football building.

One of them, Jim Calhoun, witnessed Sandusky in a shower performing a sex act on a young boy who was pinned up against a wall, according to the grand jury report.

A second janitor, Ronald Petrosky, witnessed a boy leaving hand in hand with Sandusky after Petrosky heard the shower running.

The grand jury presentment calls them Victim Two and Victim Eight.

Calhoun approached Petrosky, crying and very upset. He told Petrosky what he’d seen and said it was something he would never forget.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbet talks about the Penn State sex scandal

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett holds a press conference at State College, to talk about the sex scandal at Penn State University, and the firing of president Graham Spanier and long-time football coach Joe Paterno. VIDEO BY ANDY COLWELL, The Patriot-News

Watch videoAll of the employees working that night were relatively new, and decided to tell Calhoun how he could report the incident, according to the grand jury presentment. There is no record that he or any of the others did that.

Twice that night, Petrosky testified that he saw Sandusky slowly drive through the parking lot of the football building. The first time was two or three hours after it happened, and the second was very early in the morning, between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m.

Calhoun was a temporary employee who left the job after about eight months.

He has dementia and won’t be able to testify. Attorney General Linda Kelly said that should not hurt the investigation because they have other witnesses.

However, Sandusky’s attorney says he’ll try to stop the prosecution of both cases because the alleged victims themselves have never been identified.

WHAT DID McQUEARY SAY?

Two years later, there was yet another missed opportunity.

And this is the incident that, according to testimony, eventually involved Paterno and Spanier.

This is the second case, in which the victim hasn’t been identified.

It was about 9:30 at night on a Friday before spring break. McQueary testified that he came to the football building in order to drop off a pair of new sneakers and pick up recruiting tapes. Instead, he testified that he walked in on Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy, estimated to be about 10 years old, in the shower.

McQueary testified that the boy was pinned with his hands against the shower wall — just like Jim Calhoun had seen two years earlier — as Sandusky stood behind him.

McQueary was shocked. Both Sandusky and the boy — who remains unidentified — saw him, he testified.

Instead of taking action to stop what he was watching, McQueary testified that he left immediately and told his father. The next morning, McQueary said, they went to see Paterno.

And what did McQueary say?

We don’t know. The grand jury presentment that has been given to the public, simply says that McQueary “reported what he had seen.”

According to Paterno’s testimony, McQueary told the coach he had witnessed Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” to the boy.

Two days after the report was released, Paterno issued a statement saying he wanted to correct the impression left by the presentment.

Even though Paterno himself had told the grand jury that McQueary saw “something of a sexual nature,” Paterno said this week that he had stopped the conversation before it got too graphic. Instead, he told McQueary he would need to speak with his superior, Athletic Director Tim Curley, and with Schultz.

That meeting did not happen for 10 days.

What was said at that meeting is in dispute.

McQueary testified he told the men in specific detail exactly what he’d seen, and what he testified to before the grand jury.

Curley and Schultz say nothing criminal was described. Instead, Curley says, it was characterized as “inappropriate conduct” or “horsing around.

Schultz said it seemed like “not that serious.”

But Schultz also admitted to the grand jury that McQueary had reported seeing “inappropriate sexual conduct” between the older man and the young boy, and possibly Sandusky “inappropriately grabbing the young boy’s genitals.”

Neither man called the police. Instead, they decided to tell former President Graham Spanier.

Spanier testified that he was only told there was “horsing around” in the shower — between Sandusky and a boy. And that had made a member of Curley’s staff “uncomfortable.” Spanier told the grand jury he didn’t hear that the incident was sexual.

Spanier never asked to speak with McQueary.

Spanier signed off on their decision to ban Sandusky from bringing children from his charity, The Second Mile, into the Penn State football building.

The ban, Curley admitted, was unenforceable.

And in fact, Sandusky attended Second Mile football camps with kids on other Penn State campuses as recently as 2008.

What about The Second Mile itself? Second Mile President Jack Raykovitz was told about the incident and the ban in 2002, the report says.

Raykovitz, too, never contacted the police.

When Raykovitz testified before the grand jury, he said Curley had merely told him an employee was “uncomfortable” about seeing Sandusky in the locker room shower with a boy, but that an internal investigation revealed no wrongdoing.

“At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the grand jury report,” Raykovitz said in a statement after the indictments. Raykovitz’s statement said the new details “bring shock, sadness and concern,” but said they had no indication any of the alleged abuse happened within charity programs and events.

According to the grand jury, then, here is how McQueary’s eyewitness account became watered down at each stage:

McQueary: anal rape.

Paterno: something of a sexual nature.

Schultz: inappropriately grabbing of the young boy’s genitals.

Curley: inappropriate conduct or horsing around.

Spanier: conduct that made someone uncomfortable.

Raykovitz: a ban on bringing kids to the locker room.

When The Patriot-News first reported details of the investigation in March, Raykovitz said he was assured by prosecutors that The Second Mile and its programs were not targets of the investigation.

Kelly will only say that the investigation is ongoing. However, Gov. Tom Corbett — who as attorney general began the Sandusky investigation — said Thursday night that the new attorney general will look into what The Second Mile knew.

Sandusky retired from the charity in August 2010. Raykovitz has said recently that Sandusky had no contact with children in the program after November 2008, when Sandusky notified them that he was under investigation.

A MOTHER'S SUSPICIONS

The alleged victim who finally kicked off a full-scale investigation — the one that led to Sandusky’s indictment — came forward in late 2008. He was a freshman at Central Mountain High School, where Sandusky was a volunteer football coach.

In an interview with The Patriot-News, the boy’s mother said that she began to suspect something was wrong when her son asked about a database for “sex weirdos” and when Sandusky began demanding to discipline her child.

She called school administrators, and voiced concern about Sandusky taking the boy out of class without permission.

The principal decided to ask her son if anything was wrong.

The boy broke down, confessing that Sandusky was abusing him, the mother said.

But there were earlier signs.

When a grand jury convened in 2009, two school officials testified that they had witnessed strange behavior from Sandusky while he was spending time at the school.

First, the football coach, Steve Turchetta, characterized Sandusky as being very controlling with Second Mile students, and often was alone with them. That included the alleged victim in this case.

Turchetta also testified that Sandusky could be “clingy” and “needy” when a boy would try to distance himself.

And the wrestling coach, Joe Miller, said he walked in on Sandusky lying face to face in physical contact with a boy on a wrestling mat one night in 2007 or 2008.

Miller also testified that Sandusky jumped up and said, “Hey, Coach, we’re just working on wrestling moves.”

Miller also noticed that Sandusky and the boy frequently hung out and often used the wrestling room.

Sandusky was barred from the school as soon as this victim made allegations against him, and Kelly praised the school district for acting appropriately.

The mother has told The Patriot-News she was upset to hear the district being commended.

“They told me to go home and think about what I wanted to do, and I was not happy,” she said. “They said I needed to think about how that would impact my son if I said something like that. I went home and got [my son] and we came to [Children and Youth Services] immediately.”

SO MANY CHANCES MISSED

1995.

1998.

2000.

2002.

2008.

These dates spanning 13 years share two common threads that run through the entire grand jury presentment. At each stage, boys voiced concern or pain or alarm at the conduct of Jerry Sandusky — or adults witnessed behavior they found troubling or alarming.

And at each stage, other adults dismissed, minimized or failed to act upon those concerns.

It remains to be seen whether any of these actions, or the statements behind them, are a matter for the courts. For now, only two things are certain:

Many of the accounts in this tragic and tangled history conflict with one another.

And everyone cannot be telling the truth.