Phil Knight calls it right at PSU

[FASTEDDY]

Sigh. This again. In the 4 months since the story broke, we have almost no new information. As I said 4 months ago, the details matter and we will hopefully find out exactly who squashed or bungled the investigation. However, I believe the following to be true.

No one likes child abusers or pedophiles.
The horror these kids went through can not be understated.
The mob often needs to vent its rage at something and that something is usually a person.
The term "lawn boy" is offensive.
A lot of these most powerful persons on campus seem to get fired, and it puzzles me.
Bobby Knight was also the most powerful person on his campus, didn't help him either.
Joe as the most famous person in this story and based on what we know now is bearing a undue share of the blame because of it.
He was not the abuser.
He did not witness the abuse.
At the time of the eyewitness report, he was not in a supervisory role to the.abuser.
He was not in charge of the investigation.
He did not have organizational control over access to campus nor the removal of a tenured professor.
He was not the statutory agent required to report the accusation.
He did report the incident to said agent.
He would not have been privy to the status of the investigation, if he did ask.

So in that instance, Phil Knight is correct.

Should Joe have raised holy heck say around 2004+ when nothing happened? Probably, but I don't know what he knew or what he was told.

I hope the details come out, because as Phil said, the investigation was the villian and whomever was responsible for that should be outed. Maybe it was Joe, maybe it was some politician afraid of being connected to Second Mile, maybe it was plain old small cow town incompetence.

The man had a long list of humanitarian accomplishments and clearly many people knew him closely and loved him dearly. Before anyone feels the need to spit on his grave, I would ask you to remember that and let the due process take its course.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Very well said and completely agree.

 

[SubbaBub]

Sometimes, the mob is right. This is one of those times.

This last statement parodies itself.

Listen, I am by no means letting Joe completely off the hook. At the very least, Joe was a highly respected community leader with a long history of supporting the development of young people. To me, his silence was odd for him and therefore suspicious. But, there were a lot of people involved and a ton of information still to come out. A bunch of scenarios of why this didn't come out are still probable. I won't repeat various thoughts from other posts.

I have many of the same questions asked here. This is a very large and far reaching scandal and some stuff certainly went down. I'd rather wait to find out before passing judgements on who knew what/when and who should have done what/when.




Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[NutmegState]

Again, Sandusky being allowed to bring young boys to Penn State practices as late as 2007 seals the deal for me. That's Paterno's practice.

That's Paterno, Sandusky, and young boys standing on the sidelines at practice.

That's years after Paterno was notified by McQueary that Sandusky was doing something sexual in nature (raping) a young boy in the showers.

Sandusky is the criminal, but those who believe that Paterno, who along with McQueary, might have been the only Penn State football staff members in the know, did the right thing, are fooling themselves.

This is a man turning a blind eye to horrible crimes. This is a man allowing a criminal to walk the sidelines at practice with his prey. Children.

Joe Paterno allowed Sandusky to lure young boys to Penn State practices.

Anyone want to try and tell me that Joe Paterno had no control over who was at his practices in 2007?

 

[SubbaBub]

Again, Sandusky being allowed to bring young boys to Penn State practices as late as 2007 seals the deal for me. That's Paterno's practice.

That's Paterno, Sandusky, and young boys standing on the sidelines at practice.

That's years after Paterno was notified by McQueary that Sandusky was doing something sexual in nature (raping) a young boy in the showers.

Sandusky is the criminal, but those who believe that Paterno, who along with McQueary, might have been the only Penn State football staff members in the know, did the right thing, are fooling themselves.

This is a man turning a blind eye to horrible crimes. This is a man allowing a criminal to walk the sidelines at practice with his prey. Children.

Joe Paterno allowed Sandusky to lure young boys to Penn State practices.

Anyone want to try and tell me that Joe Paterno had no control over who was at his practices in 2007?

Those are very valid questions to which I would like an answer, I hope we find out. I think Sandusky should have been arrested the day Joe reported it. At.minimum, Joe probably should have said to Jerry, I don't think its a good idea for you to be at practice. Maybe he was told, don't mention the investigation to anyone. Maybe banning the kids from practice only hurt the kids. I have no clue. I only know that I don't know.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Those are very valid questions to which I would like an answer, I hope we find out. I think Sandusky should have been arrested the day Joe reported it. At.minimum, Joe probably should have said to Jerry, I don't think its a good idea for you to be at practice. Maybe he was told, don't mention the investigation to anyone. Maybe banning the kids from practice only hurt the kids. I have no clue. I only know that I don't know.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Had Joe reported it to the police, maybe that would've been possible. But the police were never notified. Do you see the distinction now?

 

[kibblesnbits]

The facts do not support your thesis.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

Really? So Joe Paterno, McQueary, et al were questioned by the police or investigators from child protective services to investigate the claims they made in their meeting with Curley/Schultz? If I was incorrect in asserting that it didn't happen I'll gladly acknowledge it. As far as I know he reported it to two guys that are arguing they had not legal requirement to notify authorities to perform an investigation. Do you have a source?

 

[SubbaBub]

Clearly, you don't. So now Joe was responsible for arresting Sandusky?

Let's be clear here, barring direct interference with the investigation you are blaming Joe for not flagging down a police cruiser and not becoming a vigilante?

Btw, I am not ruling out Joe as King of PA putting the kibosh on the investigation. I doubt it, but not ruling it out.

What do I think happened? I think the GJ report is accurate up to the second meeting McQueary had with the AD and VP. I think the President and others were informed as a matter of PR damage control. I think there may be some with financial or other connections to Second Mile that would embarrassing. I also think that the protection of the PSU brand factored in as well. I suspect those interests stopped the investigation. Who was it?
It could have been Joe, the AD, or the VP involved. Certainly the President knew and had that authority, could have been the DA, a judge, a politician or someone with connections to the Trustees. It simply could have been a series of people not courageous enough to bring down the golden goose of PSU football.

Based on the public comments by former players, coaches, and other people in the community, Sandusky was seen as kind of a creepy guy. Whether his crimes were widely known outside the context of the case is uncertain, but possible.

I believe there was a cover up, a big one likely. I just don't know who was in on it.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

 

[kibblesnbits]

What investigation? I think you are validating my point. To investigate you have to have qualified people looking into the matter. If it stopped with Curly, Schultz, Spanier, etc. at some administrative/political level before competent investigators spoke with the witnesses then that is a cover up, not an investigation. Now, let me see, who would have also known that it died before the complainants were questioned by professionals????

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

Let's not forget that Sandusky was investigated by authorities in 98 and resigned in 99 at a very young age for a coach. He was considered a brilliant defensive mind and had a bright future. And just like that he's out of coaching.

Paterno was the King of State College. To think he was unaware of the investigation back then.....I can't believe that. That's what makes it worse for me. If he knew of the sting in 98 and was notified by McQueary in 02.......I really don't want to believe that.

 

[superjohn]

The second Paterno didn't go to the police, the coverup started and then to see kids with Sandusky on campus for the next decade and not do anything, it's absolutely disgusting. Phil Knight is an idiot and it's disturbing to me how Penn State supporters have been acting ever since this scandal broke.

 

[freescooter]

This was an awful awful situation. While not letting Joe off the hook, I guess I buy the fact that an 85 year old man might have a certain difficulty dealing with the situation. I actually do buy to at least some degree that he felt the right thing to do was pass it up the ladder. Doesn't totally excuse him by any means, but having talked with someone else who dealt with a very similar issue, I can understand his thinking. It was almost like he didn't want to have to deal with something so disgusting, something a man of his generation would probably never even aknowledge, never mind talk about, so he passed it on to the next guy up the line and hoped it would get dealt with. That is essentially what my friend did, too. That didn't work out well for him either. For that matter, that seems to be what McQueary did too, and he was from a different, more open age. As I say, it was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't excuse what happened. But I think I understand what happened.

 

[Icebear]

Icebear,

Joe followed the law is not quite accurate or sufficient.

Mandatory reporters in Pennsylvania are people that work with children. It is quite logical that they report things to others in the child support hierarchy (who are obligated to report the situation to the appropriate investigative authorities) - thereby not jeopardizing their relationship with the child or putting themselves at risk while ensuring that it is addressed. That statutory policy in no way governs the behavior of adults in other environments.

This case gives precisely the reason why non-mandated reporters have different moral obligations. In this case Paterno reported the situation to two people neither trained nor obligated by law to report the situation. And once he knew that no investigation occurred - he knew after all that no police or protective services staff came to question him or his staff as complainants or potential witnesses - why didn't he then make sure it was reported to appropriate enforcement staff. "I didn't know" is not good enough for someone in his position.

Sorry, but every PA lawyer about 6, two judges, and two DA in PA with whom I have discussed the case would disagree with you. Some are in my congregation others in my community or State College. Joe was not a mandated reporter under PA law but Curley and Schultz were because of the use of the facilities by youth covered under the PA law for various sports camps under the authority of the AD. As a pastor in PA I am a trained mandated reporter through our denomination.

Morally, I disagree with you assessment because both JoePA and McQueary took action and, also, gave testimony potentially against personal interest which according to Augustine is the highest measure of moral action.

 

[Icebear]

Answer me this: Why the hell did Jerry Sandusky retire at the age of 55, when he was on track to possibly be the next head coach of Penn State? Are you insinuating that those on the staff at Penn State believed that their top assistant decided to retire simply because he wanted to hang 'em up? Sandusky made numerous references to suspicious behavior around children in his book, which came out in 2001, prior to the incident witnessed by McQeary.

Also, why on earth did JoePa allow Jerry Sandusky to bring kids to a practice in 2007, years after he had been barred from taking kids on campus?

Because he had approached Joe about the possibility when he might become the head coach. Joe told him that he would not be able to be both head coach and continue his work at Second Mile. Further Joe told him Sandusky needed to begin taking better care of the responsibilities he had as Defensive Coordinator which Joe felt had been lagging. Sandusky made the choice and was given the same severance conditions and access to the facilities that all former coaches were granted. That only makes sense if no one had any awareness of any accusations against Sandusky in the past.

 

[Icebear]

The second Paterno didn't go to the police, the coverup started and then to see kids with Sandusky on campus for the next decade and not do anything, it's absolutely disgusting. Phil Knight is an idiot and it's disturbing to me how Penn State supporters have been acting ever since this scandal broke.

Personally, I believe the law in every state should be changed to require every person to be accountable for reporting any reasonably possible situation of child abuse. Furthermore the requirement should that all such reports will be made to the state police.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Sorry, but every PA lawyer about 6, two judges, and two DA in PA with whom I have discussed the case would disagree with you. Some are in my congregation others in my community or State College. Joe was not a mandated reporter under PA law but Curley and Schultz were because of the use of the facilities by youth covered under the PA law for various sports camps under the authority of the AD. As a pastor in PA I am a trained mandated reporter through our denomination.

Morally, I disagree with you assessment because both JoePA and McQueary took action and, also, gave testimony potentially against personal interest which according to Augustine is the highest measure of moral action.

1) Please explain how they acted against their own interests when this matter was first raised. Going to the police or going public when the university wanted to bury the matter would be acting against their own interests. Telling a couple of administrators and then going quietly into the night while Sandusky continued to bring children on campus seems more like passive complicity. If they acted against their own interests a decade later that is admirable to a degree, but doesn't justify in any way a decade of silence.

2) What did your legal experts tell you? If they said that Joe may have done the minimum required by law it doesn't conflict with my statements. In fact, there may have been no legal requirement at all. PA statutes deal with professionals and staff that are trained to interact with children as part of their occupation. That includes school teachers and administrators, but it could be argued (and has been by Curley and Schultz' attorneys) that it doesn't include university football coaches and administrators. It will be interesting to see how they make out with that argument.

However, what cannot be challenged is that all of those with knowledge are human beings that should know right from wrong. Knowing that there are allegations of harm to children that are not being investigated (and JoePa knew that no investigation occurred) is a massive moral failing. Was JoePa the biggest culprit here - of course not - but he absolutely shares in the blame. That's what makes Knight's and Jay Paterno's statements and the willfully blind loyalty of many in the PSU community so infuriating.

 

[RS9999X]

LOL, yeah it was the Board of Trustees who mistreated Joe and didn't handle the situation well. It wasn't Joe turning a blind eye and then as a Catholic trying to claim he didn't comprehend the crime.

Did I miss the coaches at UConn speaking out on Gregory McKee? Or did they let the authorites do their due diligence and investigation?

If McKee was arrrested again in Chicago over the last 18 months would the UConn staff be responsible for not alerting everyone and putting pictures up on the web? If another players is involved is that proof of a UConn Huskies conspiracy to distribute child ? What if charges were never made and a warrant never issued? Would UConn be responsible if it happened again?

>> A former football player at University of Connecticut was arrested Friday after police say they found 96 pictures and 26 videos of 5- to10-year-old boys engaged in sexual acts on his computer.

Gregory McKee, 19, turned himself into state police in at 8 a.m. He was arraigned at Superior Court in Rockville hours later.

--------------------------------------------
A second UConn student, Seven Lewis, 21, of Plainville, was arrested on Wednesday on federal child pornography charges. Tom Carson, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office said the cases are unrelated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/08/greg-mckee-arrested-uconn_n_793779.html

Police began investigating possession and distribution of child pornography on the UConn campus in 2010. McKee was arrested in Storrs in December 2010. <<

79 Greg McKee
Class:
Sophomore
Hometown:
Chicago, Ill.
High School:
Martin Luther King Jr. Prep
Height / Weight:
6-6 / 290
Position:
Offensive Tackle
Birthdate:
05/19/1992
Enrolled at Connecticut for the Spring 2010 semester
High School: Named First Team All-Public League from the Chicago Sun-Times on the defensive side....team finished second in conference in senior year...two-time all-conference pick...academically ranked 23rd in class of 218...National Honor Society member...plays the piano and cello...also a member of the wrestling team.
Personal: Greg McKee...born on May 10, 1992

 

[kibblesnbits]

They didn't have to speak out because: 1) There actually was an immediate investigation by legal authorities; and 2) They weren't witnesses or complainants because they had no way to know of the problem until after the fact. On the other hand, Paterno and McQueary knew of the problem and that there was no investigation. At a minimum they accepted that situation. That's why McKee was arrested quickly and Sandusky stuck around to sexually assault boys for many more years. Unless you can show me that Randy Edsall was downloading kiddie from McKee's machine (or at least knew that it was there) and didn't tell the cops, they are not comparable situations.

No one said Paterno and McQueary had to put up billboards. However, knowing that children's lives were being permanently damaged they had a moral obligation to make sure the information was conveyed to people who would conduct a proper legal investigation.

 

[Icebear]

1) Please explain how they acted against their own interests when this matter was first raised. Going to the police or going public when the university wanted to bury the matter would be acting against their own interests. Telling a couple of administrators and then going quietly into the night while Sandusky continued to bring children on campus seems more like passive complicity. If they acted against their own interests a decade later that is admirable to a degree, but doesn't justify in any way a decade of silence.

Their silence originally was a matter of law. As I said in the earlier, law in PA requires that after it is passed on the person reporting it to the highest institutional authority steps back and leaves it alone. Our teachers are taught to make no inquiries. Any other action beyond the simplest inquiries Joe is reported to have made can be termed interference in an investigation. Their, JoePA and McQueary, testimony before the grand jury was by all reports was direct and honest and potentially against self interest. One person present called it open and unflinching.

2) What did your legal experts tell you? If they said that Joe may have done the minimum required by law it doesn't conflict with my statements. In fact, there may have been no legal requirement at all. JoePA and McQueary indeed had no legal requirement under PA law because neither worked directly with kids. Curley as administrator of facilities used for camps of kids is not in the same situation according to most I spoke to. It is an ambiguous area in a law that has not to my knowledge been tested yet.

PA statutes deal with professionals and staff that are trained to interact with children as part of their occupation. Exactly, and that is why I have training as a pastor. That includes school teachers and administrators, but it could be argued (and has been by Curley and Schultz' attorneys) that it doesn't include university football coaches and administrators. It will be interesting to see how they make out with that argument. Agreed. It will be interesting to see how this ambiguous section of the law plays out.

However, what cannot be challenged is that all of those with knowledge are human beings that should know right from wrong. Knowing that there are allegations of harm to children that are not being investigated (and JoePa knew that no investigation occurred) is a massive moral failing. Joe has stated that he had no such knowledge that an investigation occurred that is a huge leap that is not in evidence anywhere. Again, McQueary reported in the arraignment that he was told by Curley that it was being investigated or "followed up." Was JoePa the biggest culprit here - of course not - but he absolutely shares in the blame. That's what makes Knight's and Jay Paterno's statements and the willfully blind loyalty of many in the PSU community so infuriating.

How does Joe share in the blame if he had no prior knowledge of other bad acts of Sandusky, did more than the law required and did follow up asking both the AD and McQueary if the situation was being followed up? The issue of whether JoePA followed up was not addressed in the Grand Jury presentment. It wasn't within the scope of the charges. McQueary's testimony in the arraignment of Curley and Schultz did indicate that JoePA followed up with McQueary, it is not unreasonable to expect that he, also, followed up with Curley.

Despite comments of some no one among the coaches or staff who have spoken has ever seen Sandusky at practices with youth once he was banned from ringing kids on campus. Just because someone says it happened doesn't make it fact any more or less than someone saying it didn't but the entire staff well we see where that testimony goes in court.

BTW, I live about 45 minutes from campus and know numerous folks working there including in the AD. People's perceptions of Joe's dominance of the campus is 20 years old and even then was not his core mode of behavior.





I hope this helps. Again, I would prefer the law require every one of us to report directly to the state police.

 

[RS9999X]

No one said Paterno and McQueary had to put up billboards. However, knowing that children's lives were being permanently damaged they had a moral obligation to make sure the information was conveyed to people who would conduct a proper legal investigation.

Paterno was assured it was being handled wasn't that sufficient? They interviewed McQueary who was the guy with the testimony Joe merely reported what he heard. You know what that testimony is worth in court or in a police statement?

People are being completely unreasonable in their expectations of Paterno. Try applying that same level of logic to the McKee situation.....Paterno.was the man in the middle. Paterno wasn't the witness. he wasn't the person the kid told. He had a subordinate tell him and passed the info along and the subordinate was interviewed.

 

[upstater]

Joe Pa reported nothing to the police. He met with the AD and a VP that the police chief reports to for administrative reasons. He spoke to no law enforcement agents or anyone else with the skills and legal responsibility to conduct a proper investigation.

Edit: As for his subsequent knowledge, he had to know that no comprehensive investigation was done, because the police absolutely would have questioned him and McQueary. That didn't happen.

FYI, Schultz was the same guy that reported the 1998 incident to police, so to say he was simpy a functionary isn't true. He oversaw the 1998 investigation.

I disagree with Knight on a variety of things here, and don't disagree that paterno should have been fired. but i think it's clear ow that Paterno did not cover things up and that he was simply not informed about what happened. people are still emphasizing the grand jury presentment which has already been contradicted by the pretrial testimony where it's been shown that mcQueary did not describe what he saw to Paterno nor to a prominent doctor he spoke to about the molestation on the night before meeting with Paterno.

 

[kibblesnbits]

How does Joe share in the blame if he had no prior knowledge of other bad acts of Sandusky, did more than the law required and did follow up asking both the AD and McQueary if the situation was being followed up? The issue of whether JoePA followed up was not addressed in the Grand Jury presentment. It wasn't within the scope of the charges. McQueary's testimony in the arraignment of Curley and Schultz did indicate that JoePA followed up with McQueary, it is not unreasonable to expect that he, also, followed up with Curley.

Despite comments of some no one among the coaches or staff who have spoken has ever seen Sandusky at practices with youth once he was banned from ringing kids on campus. Just because someone says it happened doesn't make it fact any more or less than someone saying it didn't but the entire staff well we see where that testimony goes in court.

BTW, I live about 45 minutes from campus and know numerous folks working there including in the AD. People's perceptions of Joe's dominance of the campus is 20 years old and even then was not his core mode of behavior.





I hope this helps. Again, I would prefer the law require every one of us to report directly to the state police.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Accepting "it's being followed up" as an answer but not questioning why they weren't contacted as potential witnesses/complainants by even a single investigator isn't sufficient in my eyes when child sexual abuse is alleged. If they did ask, I'd love to hear what answer they found sufficient to let the matter go while Sandusky continued interacting with children for years through his charity in the relatively small State College community. In either case, the essentially accepted that there was no legal investigation despite the severity of the matter.

 

[Adios]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

 

[kibblesnbits]

Paterno was assured it was being handled wasn't that sufficient? They interviewed McQueary who was the guy with the testimony Joe merely reported what he heard. You know what that testimony is worth in court or in a police statement?

People are being completely unreasonable in their expectations of Paterno. Try applying that same level of logic to the McKee situation.....Paterno.was the man in the middle. Paterno wasn't the witness. he wasn't the person the kid told. He had a subordinate tell him and passed the info along and the subordinate was interviewed.

At a minimum Paterno was told by one of his current employees that something inappropriate involving young boys was done by one of his former employees in the football facility - which was absolutely his domain. It's not as if he was told something third hand that happened off campus involving strangers.

Unless Randy Edsall was conducting undercover kiddie stings I'm not sure how he would have had any inkling regarding McKee. However, if you told Edsall that McKee was distributing kiddie pornography in the Burton or Shenkman facilities, I'm extremely confident it would have been addressed ASAP. The situations are not comparable.

 

[kibblesnbits]

God Almighty. The man is dead. Died two months after being fired. Do you think sitting at a computer arguing about Joe Paterno is going to make a difference in the world? There's so many injustices in this world and this issue gets the most attention from college sports fans? There's thousands of kids (at least) dying from starvation. If you want to make a difference, go help them. The Paterno era is over. The man's life is over. And here we are, egging on him as if it's going to make a difference? Get real. Go to a "third world country" if you want to see injustices. Do something about that, if you care so much, rather than being keyboard warriors.

And your posts somehow make you a candidate for a Nobel Prize? Nothing here changes the world - whether it is discussions of controversial matters or recruiting. If it bothers you there is always the option not to read it.

 

[Adios]

And your posts somehow make you a candidate for a Nobel Prize? Nothing here changes the world - whether it is discussions of controversial matters or recruiting. If it bothers you there is always the option not to read it.

The title of the thread says contrary to what most people here are saying. The man is dead. What more do people want? Piss on his body? His grave is probably going to have security, anyway.

Yeah, give me a Nobel Prize. For trying to get college football fans' heads out of their @$$es.