Paterno and Spanier both fired!

[Icebear]

How can you say he didn't not have absolute power when he was asked politely to resign, and he said NO. Where else in life would your bosses not immediately remove you?!

That isn't power, Kait. It is an awareness of the fuss and problem it would become. As I said it is not power in any absolute sense and not in a way that he could force people to do things. Power, 20 years ago maybe. For the last decade, not so much. He understood the Board simply wanted him to go away quietly and he wasn't ready to do that. They didn't want to be the ones the public saw as beating up on Joe. It was more of being an immovable object.

 

[JS]

Two separate points in time, stam, I am suggesting that if Joe followed up as many say he should have after the fact with Curley that he may have received a similar response. . . . I admit it is hard to keep everything straight.

It's especially hard to keep everything straight when you switch the context of your speculative "what if Joe was told the exact same thing" comment.

A few posts ago you and I were discussing that comment as pertaining to what McQueary told Paterno. We seem to have agreed that he didn't likely tell him the Curley pigs have wings story, but you justified the comment as just meant to establish that speculation goes both ways.

Stamford then points out that Paterno's own grand jury testimony contradicted the pigs and wings story (Paterno knew there was fondling or something sexual), and now you say your "exact same thing" comment actually pertained to what Curley might later have said to a following-up Paterno.

So now this argumentative ju-jitsu has us in a place where Paterno gets pigs and wings back from Curley, after he, Paterno, with knowledge of something sexual having gone on, was the one who reported the incident to Curley in the first place.

An yes, what tangled webs we weave.

 

[Aluminny69]

It looks like evidence will continue to trickle out, with conflicting testimony. Here is a well written article with some new evidence:
There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995

 

[Aluminny69]

More To The Story At Penn State

From this story:

The I-told-my-boss defense also does not fly for Joe. It’s fine if you start out that way. You tell your boss. You get the paper for a week. If you don’t see a story in the paper about what you told your boss, you take other action. Particularly if you’re Joe Paterno.

Because if you’re Joe Paterno, your boss – the athletic director – is not actually your boss. He can’t fire you – the AD tried once, with the help of the president of the university, and Joe rebuffed it. He can’t discipline you – Paterno’s version of right and wrong is infinitely more credible than the ADs to the people who care about Penn State football. And the performance review is done by the TV-watching, ticket-buying, suite-reserving, game-attending public, which cares all about Ws and Ls and nothing about your opinion.

A lot of people think the secret inside the secret has been revealed – what on earth could be worse than a 40-count indictment for child molestation? But some other secret was bigger. That secret is worth keeping even if it means prison for some of the top officials at Penn State and, for Paterno, the loss of the job that seemed to be his for life and a reputation envied by all in his profession.

That must be one hell of a secret.

 

[UConnCat]

That isn't power, Kait. It is an awareness of the fuss and problem it would become. As I said it is not power in any absolute sense and not in a way that he could force people to do things. Power, 20 years ago maybe. For the last decade, not so much. He understood the Board simply wanted him to go away quietly and he wasn't ready to do that. They didn't want to be the ones the public saw as beating up on Joe. It was more of being an immovable object.

What you just described is power. As we've seen over the course of history in many different contexts, power can be derived from many sources. Joe cultivated an image among the students, fans and administration at PSU and used it to his own advantage in calculating ways. For the first time ever, someone associated with that university -- the BOT -- stood up to his power and, at long last, said no more.

Here's a revealing part of Gene Wojciechowski's piece at espn.com:

His spectacular rise and equally spectacular fall prove once more that absolute power absolutely corrupts or, at the very least, blurs the vision. And make no mistake: Paterno's power and influence at Penn State was often vast and overpowering.

"Joe is -- was -- in absolute control of Penn State athletics," says a former BCS conference official who had a long working relationship with Paterno. "There's no question about it."

Says another BCS conference administrator: "Joe's got a dark side. He's not always that witty old man. Joe can be very, very tough. He's very smart."

The more phone calls you make to those who know Paterno, who have worked with Paterno and who have socialized with Paterno, the more you realize he isn't simply the smiling cardboard cutout figure that the riotous crowds in downtown State College used as a symbol of their unrest.

The descriptions from one administrator: "Fabulous and horrendous" … "Surreptitious" … "Self-absorbed" … "Calculating" … "Protective of everything he's done."

 

[ctchamps]

Joe Paterno ran that school, and then some. If he wanted something done to Sandusky, it would have been done. He wanted him to have asst professor emeritus status otherwise he wouldn't have had it. That status allowed this man a safe haven to continue molesting children after the '98 incident and investigation. Why did that investigation go nowhere? Perhaps because Joe Pa didn't want it to. Joe Paterno wanted no black eyes on his program and he was willing to go to whatever lengths needed to achieve that. There is no plausible deniability for the coach who by all accounts knew every single thing that was happening in his program, he wasn't 84 and old and senile in 98. No, quite the opposite, he was the almighty Joe PA, Joe Pennsylvania. No one told him what to do. People in Pennsylvania had elevated him to God like status, I am not at all shocked that even now they defend him.

If anyone can read that grand jury report and imagine it was their child, grandchild, or nephew in that shower and still want to defend Joe Paterno's handling of it after at the very least it was reported to him that he saw a boy being fondled or something of a sexual nature, than God bless you and keep defending him.

I don't think anyone is defending Paterno or McQuaery. Both men could have handled this situation differently. And the outcome would have been different.

Some of us are arguing we have no proof that the outcome would have turned out the way we'd prefer if either of these guys did what everyone is suggesting they should have done. Some of us are claiming that it is easy to presume we would handle matters differently if we were the players , but we have no proof we'd behave any better than McQuaery or Paterno.

Read this link. It argues that most of us act just like Paterno and McQuaery:

http://www.parentsformeganslaw.org/public/statistics_childSexualAbuse.html

And some of us see circumstances that, combined with our knowledge of human behavior, allow us to understand that the actions of McQuaery and/or Paterno, may not have been done exclusively or even primarily to protect their reputation or for monetary reasons.

On this last point I would argue as evidence that Paterno and McQuaery, had finally taken the high road and corroborated the child's testimony in front of the grand jury. They could have lied like Curley and Shutlz and, if they did, these events would not be playing out the way they are playing out currently, because it is very likely that the boy would not have enough proof to support his claim in the 2002 incident. Furthermore, by speaking the truth at the grand jury, both Paterno and McQuaery, particularly McQuaery, had to know they would be exposing themselves to public ridicule in how they handled themselves over this matter. The backlash was predictable. I'm not saying either of them were noble with how they handled things up to their testimony. I'm saying in the end they did the right thing and many people wouldn't have. In fact most people, under the circumstances, would have acted like Curley and Schultz at the grand jury testimony.

This is already too long. I haven't addressed how shock leads us to denial and how incredible that denial can be. It might explain some of the actions Paterno and McQuaery took following the 2002 incident. It isn't excusing bad judgement and action. It is understanding bad judgement and action so we can learn about things in a more meaningful way.

Our arguments aren't meant to defend these people. In many ways I share the same emotions about these events that you share. But icebear is correct. We are letting our emotions take over our thinking. There are a lot of responses that, imo, demonstrate we are not seeking justice, but vengeance. We may be justified in having these emotions, but if we cave into them, then we are, in our own way, acting on our animalistic instincts instead of human and spiritual nobility.

 

[intlzncster]

It looks like evidence will continue to trickle out, with conflicting testimony. Here is a well written article with some new evidence:
There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995

Good on that kids mother for investigating. Without that, Sandusky would be business as usual.

Coincidentally,one of the janitors who saw Sandusky (in 2000?) was named Jim Calhoun.

 

[Icebear]

What you just described is power. As we've seen over the course of history in many different contexts, power can be derived from many sources. Joe cultivated an image among the students, fans and administration at PSU and used it to his own advantage in calculating ways. For the first time ever, someone associated with that university -- the BOT -- stood up to his power and, at long last, said no more.

Here's a revealing part of Gene Wojciechowski's piece at espn.com:

His spectacular rise and equally spectacular fall prove once more that absolute power absolutely corrupts or, at the very least, blurs the vision. And make no mistake: Paterno's power and influence at Penn State was often vast and overpowering.

"Joe is -- was -- in absolute control of Penn State athletics," says a former BCS conference official who had a long working relationship with Paterno. "There's no question about it."

Says another BCS conference administrator: "Joe's got a dark side. He's not always that witty old man. Joe can be very, very tough. He's very smart."

The more phone calls you make to those who know Paterno, who have worked with Paterno and who have socialized with Paterno, the more you realize he isn't simply the smiling cardboard cutout figure that the riotous crowds in downtown State College used as a symbol of their unrest.

The descriptions from one administrator: "Fabulous and horrendous" … "Surreptitious" … "Self-absorbed" … "Calculating" … "Protective of everything he's done."

All this is true. And a surprise to no one in the valleys.
As to power, I disagree. Power is a force to move something. What Joe demonstrated was inertia and not force. He did not make anyone do what he wanted other than said no. The power to take action was the boards and they refused to wield it. Something consistent with the inaction of the administration.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Many I talk to, including myself, could care less about the legal process...however that turns out, Joe and his Penn State cohorts chose to cover up the rape of children.

Period.

And, Joe tells us to pray for the victims, as he walks into his house.

 

[intlzncster]

Many I talk to, including myself, could care less about the legal process...however that turns out, Joe and his Penn State cohorts chose to cover up the rape of children.

Period.

Which is exactly why we have the legal process. Otherwise, people would be getting executed all over the place whenever someone or some group is outraged. It's the mob mentality.

Make no mistake, I'd like JP to get his just deserts too.

 

[BugsyCT]

Looks like The Second Mile website (at least for now) has taken down their Board of Directors & Staff pages. Members demanding their names be removed from it?

http://www.thesecondmile.org/search.php

 

[Icebear]

Which is exactly why we have the legal process. Otherwise, people would be getting executed all over the place whenever someone or some group is outraged. It's the mob mentality.

Make no mistake, I'd like JP to get his just deserts too.

Exactly. Justice must cut the same for the rich and the poor, the sojourner and the powerful.

It looks like evidence will continue to trickle out, with conflicting testimony. Here is a well written article with some new evidence:
There were many missed chances to investigate as early as 1995

This is a great piece that points out all of the inconsistencies I have attempted to point towards as people make assumptions.

What are the odds on Sandusky going to trial. I expect slim and none.
Curley and Schultz trials will likely occur.
Remember Jen Harris never got to trial because the institution, read that board, wanted a settlement.

 

[Icebear]

Looks like The Second Mile website (at least for now) has taken down their Board of Directors & Staff pages. Members demanding their names be removed from it?

http://www.thesecondmile.org/search.php

Probably because of harassment. Many members of the Board may never have been involved.

 

[Icebear]

It's especially hard to keep everything straight when you switch the context of your speculative "what if Joe was told the exact same thing" comment.

A few posts ago you and I were discussing that comment as pertaining to what McQueary told Paterno. We seem to have agreed that he didn't likely tell him the Curley pigs have wings story, but you justified the comment as just meant to establish that speculation goes both ways.

Stamford then points out that Paterno's own grand jury testimony contradicted the pigs and wings story (Paterno knew there was fondling or something sexual), and now you say your "exact same thing" comment actually pertained to what Curley might later have said to a following-up Paterno.

So now this argumentative ju-jitsu has us in a place where Paterno gets pigs and wings back from Curley, after he, Paterno, with knowledge of something sexual having gone on, was the one who reported the incident to Curley in the first place.

An yes, what tangled webs we weave.

Sorry, I see no conflict at all.

 

[UConnCat]

On this last point I would argue as evidence that Paterno and McQuaery, had finally taken the high road and corroborated the child's testimony in front of the grand jury. They could have lied like Curley and Shutlz and, if they did, these events would not be playing out the way they are playing out currently, because it is very likely that the boy would not have enough proof to support his claim in the 2002 incident. Furthermore, by speaking the truth at the grand jury, both Paterno and McQuaery, particularly McQuaery, had to know they would be exposing themselves to public ridicule in how they handled themselves over this matter. The backlash was predictable. I'm not saying either of them were noble with how they handled things up to their testimony. I'm saying in the end they did the right thing and many people wouldn't have. In fact most people, under the circumstances, would have acted like Curley and Schultz at the grand jury testimony.

If you're going to go on at length on the subject, then at least get the facts straight. Paterno and McQueary didn't, as you state, "corroborate the child's testimony in front of the grand jury." The identity of the 10-year-old boy whom McQueary saw being sodomized in 2002 is unknown as of the Grand Jury report. No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus.

It's a sad statement when someone actually believes that testifying honestly under oath in front of a grand jury about witnessing a child's rape or being told about "fondling or acts of a sexual nature" between a 56-year-old-man and a young boy is considered the "high road," or something that many people wouldn't do because of public ridicule. It's beyond sad, really. Thankfully, I think and feel differently.

 

[JS]

Sorry, I see no conflict at all.

That inadequate response reduces my expectation of an honest discussion, already faltering, to near zero.

Please don't bother with any further response.

 

[meyers7]

How could someone go on vacation with their family and Sandusky, knowing what they know? It's beyond me. I wouldn't have let my kids within 100 yards of the guy.

Well I don't know specifically if anyone vacationed with Sandusky. I was more saying (or hearing) most coaching staffs do stuff like this. And that's were they could have talked about/heard about Sandusky.

 

[ctchamps]

If you're going to go on at length on the subject, then at least get the facts straight. Paterno and McQueary didn't, as you state, "corroborate the child's testimony in front of the grand jury." The 10-year-old boy whom McQueary saw being sodomized in 2002 is unknown as of the Grand Jury report. No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus.

It's a sad statement when someone actually believes that testifying honestly under oath in front of a grand jury about witnessing a child's rape or being told about "fondling or acts of a sexual nature" between a 56-year-old-man and a young boy is considered the "high road," or something that many people wouldn't do because of public ridicule. It's beyond sad, really. Thankfully, I think and feel differently.

Thanks for straightening out the details. There has been a lot going on. Although it appears you have no problem mixing conjecture with details to get the emotional effect you desire. This following statement is conjecture on your part and intended for an affect.

"No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy, including the man (McQueary) with whom the boy made eye contact in the locker room that evening. The reason seems fairly obvious: if we don't know who he is, it's easier to forget it happened, even when confronted with the ongoing presence of the perpetrator of that heinous crime on our campus."

I qualified my position and explained what I meant by the high road. McQuaery and Paterno did not lie to the grand jury. Curley and Schultz chose to continue with lies. So Paterno and McQuaery did finally do something right, even if some of us prefer not to give them any credit for it. I can understand why people would prefer to belittle the testimony. For most of us it doesn't make up for all the inaction from 2002 until that testimony was given. But how is that justice?

There is more to human behavior than most of us prefer to learn about. It doesn't justify actions. It explains them.

I posted a link about sexual abuse. Between 90 and 99% of sexual abuse cases go unreported. There are a variety of reasons behind this. One of the reasons is that the victims are attacked by family members. Frequently other members know about the attacks, but out of fear or a perverted sense of loyalty to the perpetrator, they refuse to bring the matter to authorities. And if it gets to the authorities, when queationed they lie about it, the same as Curley and Schultz. Very few people testify or when forced to testify, tell the truth. Curley and Schultz's behavior is typical for our society regarding sexual abuse, and Paterno and McQueary acted typically up until they testified. When they chose to testify honestly they acted atypically.

There is a lot of sadness about what took place around Sandusky. I'm not defending his actions or any of the other people surrounding him in these matters. It would have been honorable if McQuaery stopped the thing he witnessed. It would have been honorable if he did many of the other things people have suggested before his testimony to the grand jury. He didn't and because of that his life will be ruined forever.

But in my mind he deserves the credit for doing something that most of us don't do, contrary to your inaccurate assumption.

 

[Icebear]

That inadequate response reduces my expectation of an honest discussion, already faltering, to near zero.

Please don't bother with any further response.

Sorry, JS I just don't understand what you are saying about that situation. I don't understand the conflict you see or whether we're talking about the same thing. I thought I did but I am now sure I don't.

 

[Icebear]

Well I don't know specifically if anyone vacationed with Sandusky. I was more saying (or hearing) most coaching staffs do stuff like this. And that's were they could have talked about/heard about Sandusky.

Actually, the McQuearys and Sanduskys were very close. The kids grew up playing Little League together Midget Football and many other activities. It was written somewhere they had vacationed together. It is very likely one of the dynamics leading to Mike McQueary's emotion crisis in the events of 2002.

 

[JS]

. . . This following statement is conjecture on your part and intended for an affect.
"No efforts were made by anyone connected with PSU to identify the boy . . ."
I qualified my position and explained what I meant by the high road. McQuaery and Paterno did not lie to the grand jury. . . . Curley and Schultz's behavior is typical for our society regarding sexual abuse . . . in my mind [McQueary] deserves the credit for doing something that most of us don't do, contrary to your inaccurate assumption.

I think it's conjecture, but rather fair conjecture, that PSU didn't try to identify the boy McQueary saw. Multiple reports indicate the boy remains unidentified to this day. If PSU made unsuccessful efforts to identify him, given the totality of the institution's handling of this problem it would be very surprising.

As to whether Cat made the comment "for effect," well, the big picture here is institutional failure to seek the truth, to protect the innocent and to get the matter in the hands of the authorities outside the institution. Failure to try to identify the child in question is one dab of paint making up that picture. If you're upset by that dab, you're going to be very unhappy as this thing unfolds and (I will conjecture) gets even worse.

"McQuaery and Paterno did not lie to the grand jury." That's conjecture on YOUR part. My guess is McQueary, the future star witness, didn't, but Paterno fudged a bit. After testifying, he (no longer under oath) reportedly tried to qualify the impression left by his testimony by saying he'd stopped McQueary before his report got too graphic (whatever that means, and for whatever reason he did it). We'll see how much their testimony agrees or differs in the criminal and/or civil proceedings to come.

About your assertion that not coming forward (or even lying) about sexual abuse is typical of our society, I think you're speaking primarily of abuse within a family. But the analogy of that microcosm to the dynamics of institutional self-protection in the face of scandal is only partially useful.

One of the huge ongoing stories here, and the reason it will have legs practically forever, is that one of the protagonists is big-time college athletics, with all its power, ethical shortcomings and underlying dominance of money. The story pits that power, and the instinctive desire to protect and wield it, against one of the most basic of other human instincts -- to protect our children. The stage for that drama is set, and it'll be a very long-running play.

You're disappointed that people aren't giving Paterno and McQueary credit for their grand jury testimony. I think Cat's point is that you don't deserve a great deal of credit for answering a subpoena to appear before a grand jury, as you could be jailed for contempt if you didn't. And you may or may not deserve credit for the way you testify, bearing in mind that you can also be jailed for failing to testify truthfully -- a fate to which the prosecutor would like to introduce Curley and Schultz (so far).

So I think it's premature to give anyone on the PSU side of this a lot of credit, other than the Board. And things could get worse for Paterno. He could end up as something resembling, or being, an unindicted co-conspiritor, or even an indicted one. So I'm not inclined to give him credit in any part of this as yet.

But if it's a matter of degree, I lean toward giving McQ more credit than the other players. I know many are savaging him for not going all Rambo on Sandusky, and then not getting out in front of his superiors as time went by thereafter, but I just feel a little more sympathy for his situation -- starting with shock and dismay and proceeding to trying to do the logical reporting and then, less creditably but somewhat understandably, minding his own business as those above him were supposedly dealing with the matter, albeit for a long, long time.

 

[UConnCat]

Well said JS. And just to be clear, my statement that no one connected to the university tried to discover the identity of the boy who was raped in the shower in 2002 was based on a finding by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury Presentment states as follows on page 10:

Although Schultz oversaw the University police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency, never sought or reviewed a police report on the 1998 incident and never attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002. No one from the University did so.

I doubt the Grand Jury made this finding for effect.

 

[pap49cba]

It amazes me that a number of posters with strong opinions seem not to have read the Grand Jury report. Yes, it's a long read and very, very ugly. But if you want your views to be taken seriously, at least have the courtesy to study the facts as presented in the official GJ report.

 

[meyers7]

It amazes me that a number of posters with strong opinions seem not to have read the Grand Jury report. Yes, it's a long read and very, very ugly. But if you want your views to be taken seriously, at least have the courtesy to study the facts as presented in the official GJ report.

Also people have to remember it is a GJ report. Nothing has been proven one way or the other yet.

 

[JS]

Also people have to remember it is a GJ report. Nothing has been proven one way or the other yet.

True. To elaborate, it's something of a stacked deck consisting of what one side (the prosecution) chooses to present.

It's still the best source of facts at the current stage and, as pap49 said, it's a must-read for anyone who wants to discuss the case in a responsible and credible way.

And remember as well, the other side of the limited presentation coin. It isn't the entire case the prosecution will put on either. It's what the prosecution thinks is enough to get an indictment, that is, to get a decision that there's at least enough to the case to go forward to trial. The prosecution needn't tip its hand to everything it will eventually present, and its underlying investigations are no doubt ongoing.