Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (3 Viewers)

[mr roboto]

If they kicked him out right away, what would Sandusky have on Penn State? Just that they didn't go to the cops? But to bring that out, he has to admit to being a child molester.

 

[bushdocda]

2 new rumors to me:

Nebraska rumored to not want to play Saturday

Sandusky may have pimped kids to wealthy donors to Second Mile.

Edit- typo

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

There is certainly more here than meets the eye. The who knew what and when and why is yet to come out. The lack of action from the AD, the perjury charges, statement to Second Mile, and Sandusky being allowed to stay on definitely point to SOMETHING more. Vilify Joe for not doing the right thing in 2002 and after that if you really have to, but Joe did at least tell the AD and the grand jury the truth. So if Joe didn't lie to the grand jury, why did the AD? Why did the AD say there was no wrong doing to Second Mile? What does Sandusky have on Curly or Spanier?

do you believe that Joe was not aware of the 1998 investigation? do you think the only indication he ever received that Sandusky might be who he was came from his conversation with McQueary in which few details were shared?if you believe those things, I can see giving him the benefit of the doubt here and believing he didn't really understand the seriousness of the 2002 allegations, but both seem like a stretch.

I'm saying we do not know that at this time. All we have right now is the grand jury report which contains bits and pieces of testimony. We know that the full story isn't out there yet because at least two people are lying (Curly and Schultz). I think it is a very real possibility, and maybe even likely, that Joe knew of something in 1998 and that directly led to his retirement at that time. But I would rather have all the information before making that particular judgment.Again, based on the grand jury report alone, Joe deserves to be fired. It's really the lack of outrage directed towards Sandusky (who was a SERIAL CHILD MOLESTER who had a pattern and plan), Curly and McQueary that is getting to me. Not that people have ignored them, just that they seem to be falling by wayside. And PSU as a whole, the students, alumni, etc. are not at fault here and have also been taking an undue beating. Spanier, the BOT, etc. also need more attention here.

Sandusky is the lowest form of scum on earth. He will get what he deserves in prison.McQueary is a coward. He should be fired and if they can find something to charge him with, brought up on charges. At the absolute minimum, he should never hold a position where he is responsible for the safety of children for the rest of his life.Curly and the other admin guy are despicable human beings. I think they're only facing 7 years for their charges? They deserve more.Maybe the "disproportionate" vitriol on Paterno is that there are people defending him. No one is defending the rest. There's not a lot to discuss after the above statements are made.

You're probably right.I think people are missing on Curly though. People need to be talking about him and thinking about his role and actions because I think when all is said and done there is a lot more to him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

Like I said, whistle blower laws protect whistle blowing. They don't protect all of a whistle blower's actions. These guys have performance plans and performance standards just like most of us do in our jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if there's language in them about "providing a safe work environment" or something like that. That's fairly typical of anyone in a leadership/management role.

He'll be gone, no doubt. Just think that maybe his removal needed to be handed a bit more delicately. The BOT or new AD will get rid of him soon, don't worry.

 

[Sigmund Bloom]

Sandusky must have had some serious leverage over the program to be allowed to stay on.

But what leverage is serious enough to cover for child rape? It seems you're not believing the simple "They just wanted to save the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football" reasoning? I don't think recruiting violations are really any more serious than that, mainly because recruiting violations would mostly just be a shot to their reputation. OK, so there's also some financial implications, but none of that is even remotely more serious than covering child rape.So, if we don't buy that "reputation" is necessarily a believable reason to cover this up, the theory has to be something much, much, much bigger and would have to involve those involved in the cover up.

I think there's a big difference between a cover up and this.Cover up means exactly what you're saying BUT the administration is disgusted by this. They kick him out. They have leverage over him, obviously. They say do all of the following or we go straight to the police. Instead, he:-- was given access to the facilities-- was flown to bowl games-- given emeritus status-- allowed to bring children with him to all of the above-- given official e-mail addresses, offices, etc.There's no reason a "cover up" has to involve all of those things. The first step in a good cover up is covering all of your tracks. That means kicking Sandusky out.I find it hard to believe the conversation didn't at one point turn to:Jerry, we are thinking about going to the cops. But this looks bad, so instead, we're just going to evict you from Penn State.Jerry then says, "go F yourself, I've got THIS. If you want to go to the cops, I go with this. I'm not leaving Penn State."Saving the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football is fine, but if they are going to do that, they evict him. The fact that they didn't is telling.

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

 

[GridironMenace]

For those saying Joe Pa is Penn State...yes to the students & fans but to that board, they wanted him gone for the past 20 years and made efforts to do so. Now those same people are tossing him to the wolves and hiding behind the unwarranted attention he is recieving.

You're joking right? Unwarranted attention? Dude, Paterno enabled the entire situation. He turned a blind eye and allowed it to go on right under his nose. I'd go as far as to say that Paterno has perjured himself by leaving out vital information when he supposedly told a higher authority. Paterno should be arrested and I really think the hammer will come down on him as well shortly. His morals are completely shattered as he protected his friend, instead of innocent kids. Paterno's legacy is now in the gutter and it's written in stone. The Big 10 championship trophy, currently named the Stagg-Paterno Championship Trophy, will have to be renamed. What a disgrace he is.

If it turns out that Sandusky's retirement was due to the 1998 incident, then Joe has no excuse for not doing more on the 2002 incident.

Exactly. The entire school hide the real reason why Sandusky "retired" in 1999. He was 55 years old. He was going to take over for Paterno and he all of a sudden "retires"? PSU never contacted the police. They handled the situation internally. And after Sandusky's "retirement", they still gave him keys to the school, a parking spot and access to everything. They allowed him to travel with the team and continue with his 2nd Mile program, in which, he has full and unfettered access WITH KIDS! Paterno knew this. He didn't care and Paterno has now just lied to the grand jury on what he knew. He perjured himself and I hope he goes to jail for allowing this to happen under his nose for the rest of his life.

 

[dgreen]

Sandusky must have had some serious leverage over the program to be allowed to stay on.

But what leverage is serious enough to cover for child rape? It seems you're not believing the simple "They just wanted to save the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football" reasoning? I don't think recruiting violations are really any more serious than that, mainly because recruiting violations would mostly just be a shot to their reputation. OK, so there's also some financial implications, but none of that is even remotely more serious than covering child rape.So, if we don't buy that "reputation" is necessarily a believable reason to cover this up, the theory has to be something much, much, much bigger and would have to involve those involved in the cover up.

I think there's a big difference between a cover up and this.Cover up means exactly what you're saying BUT the administration is disgusted by this. They kick him out. They have leverage over him, obviously. They say do all of the following or we go straight to the police. Instead, he:-- was given access to the facilities-- was flown to bowl games-- given emeritus status-- allowed to bring children with him to all of the above-- given official e-mail addresses, offices, etc.There's no reason a "cover up" has to involve all of those things. The first step in a good cover up is covering all of your tracks. That means kicking Sandusky out.I find it hard to believe the conversation didn't at one point turn to:Jerry, we are thinking about going to the cops. But this looks bad, so instead, we're just going to evict you from Penn State.Jerry then says, "go F yourself, I've got THIS. If you want to go to the cops, I go with this. I'm not leaving Penn State."Saving the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football is fine, but if they are going to do that, they evict him. The fact that they didn't is telling.

Right, but what could THIS be? Even this latest pimping rumor only works if somehow the administration was involved. I guess it could be that Sandusky openly admitted all his faults in detail to the school in 1998 and they did nothing. And then when they approach him in 2002, he can say, "You evict me and I tell everyone what you knew 4 years ago." But, as mr roboto pointed out, he's putting himself in prison at that point (which maybe he wants, in a way).I don't buy the simple "reputation" reason that most people are assuming. But, I'm having a hard time imagining what THIS would be in your theory without getting really crazy and going way out there.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

 

[Zow]

Sandusky must have had some serious leverage over the program to be allowed to stay on.

But what leverage is serious enough to cover for child rape? It seems you're not believing the simple "They just wanted to save the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football" reasoning? I don't think recruiting violations are really any more serious than that, mainly because recruiting violations would mostly just be a shot to their reputation. OK, so there's also some financial implications, but none of that is even remotely more serious than covering child rape.So, if we don't buy that "reputation" is necessarily a believable reason to cover this up, the theory has to be something much, much, much bigger and would have to involve those involved in the cover up.

It may not have been a cover up at all but instead hopefuly ignorance/willful denial by several of the top people that someone who, by most prior accounts, appeared to be a really good guy. The news/allegations were so shocking they their minds just couldn't believe it so they dismissed it as a coping mechanism and moved on with the status quo. I know this may seem unbelievable, but it is very consistent with a common criminal trial law theory that it is actually much harder to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a heinous crime (i.e. child rape) than a non-heinous (i.e. DUI) because the average juror cannot visualize himself committing something so heinous and therefore his mind has a block in concluding that someone else could, whereas he has probably driven drunk at some point in his life and knows that a normal looking person could totally commit a DUI.

Another way to look at this would be too imagine, say, a close friend or co-worker being accused of something incredibly awful. Do you think you would tackle that immediately head on or would you have some skepticism? Heck, wouldn't you want to doubt it to avoid the inner turmoil of knowing you are friends/associates with someone evil? Therefore, wouldn't the best way to settle with yourself be to say "I'm going to pretend this didn't happen" and then ignore it and assume it to be false and rationalize that by saying to yourself, "well, I've never personally seen him do anything and he is just as nice as always so it must not be true."

I think the PSU leaders just didn't want to believe someone they were close to was so evil, so they denied it and allowed Sandusky to stay around as a way to cope. It's certainly not the right thing to do, but I think it could explain why they did what they did without there having to be some conspiracy behidn this where Sandusky had leverage on people. Personally, I'd find that theory much more likely if this were a scenario where Sandusky was accused of committing financial crimes/white collar crimes than can be easily explained by greed - as opposed to what he did which can only by an evil motivation.

 

[dgreen]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

I think "what no one wants to talk about" is that this might be much, much bigger. I agree we've been doing that here and there's been some mention within the media, but most of the theories on motive are that they just wanted to save the school's and Paterno's reputation. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Reepicheep]

Sandusky must have had some serious leverage over the program to be allowed to stay on.

But what leverage is serious enough to cover for child rape? It seems you're not believing the simple "They just wanted to save the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football" reasoning? I don't think recruiting violations are really any more serious than that, mainly because recruiting violations would mostly just be a shot to their reputation. OK, so there's also some financial implications, but none of that is even remotely more serious than covering child rape.So, if we don't buy that "reputation" is necessarily a believable reason to cover this up, the theory has to be something much, much, much bigger and would have to involve those involved in the cover up.

I think there's a big difference between a cover up and this.Cover up means exactly what you're saying BUT the administration is disgusted by this. They kick him out. They have leverage over him, obviously. They say do all of the following or we go straight to the police. Instead, he:-- was given access to the facilities-- was flown to bowl games-- given emeritus status-- allowed to bring children with him to all of the above-- given official e-mail addresses, offices, etc.There's no reason a "cover up" has to involve all of those things. The first step in a good cover up is covering all of your tracks. That means kicking Sandusky out.I find it hard to believe the conversation didn't at one point turn to:Jerry, we are thinking about going to the cops. But this looks bad, so instead, we're just going to evict you from Penn State.Jerry then says, "go F yourself, I've got THIS. If you want to go to the cops, I go with this. I'm not leaving Penn State."Saving the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football is fine, but if they are going to do that, they evict him. The fact that they didn't is telling.

Yep. There has to be at least one more piece to this puzzle.

I'm kind of in agreement with you here, but ... it was already kind of suspicious that a successful, hotshot defensive coordinator decided to retire from coaching at age 55. How much stranger would it have been if he just disappeared from Happy Valley? Couldn't a cover-up include making it look like everything was hunkey-dorey?Like, if Bud Foster (VT DC often discussed for BCS HC opennings) just retired from football right now, it would be strange. But if he retired, and stopped doing radio appearances and sold his restaurants in the Blacksburg area and just generally fell off the map, it would be REALLY REALLY strange, and people would ask questions. Especially if he had had any sort of allegations or accusations come up against him recently.

 

[Black Box]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

Like I said, whistle blower laws protect whistle blowing. They don't protect all of a whistle blower's actions. These guys have performance plans and performance standards just like most of us do in our jobs. It wouldn't surprise me if there's language in them about "providing a safe work environment" or something like that. That's fairly typical of anyone in a leadership/management role.

He'll be gone, no doubt. Just think that maybe his removal needed to be handed a bit more delicately. The BOT or new AD will get rid of him soon, don't worry.

It certainly makes sense that they're being more careful with his removal due to potential legal issues.

 

[David Yudkin]

If they kicked him out right away, what would Sandusky have on Penn State? Just that they didn't go to the cops? But to bring that out, he has to admit to being a child molester.

Who knows what picadillos Sandusky had on Paterno, the PSU president, other school civic leaders and administrators, the football program, etc.? Suppose he knew that Paterno had multiple student girlfriends over the years? That the board of trustees catered parties with hookers? That local business executives gave large donations to his foundation to have sex with young boys? That there were multiple recruiting infractions that could have lost the school all their scholarships?We have no idea what he knew that could fry any number of people. He was there for what, 30+ years as a coach and another almost 15 afterwards? Who knows what skeletons are in what closets at this point? I agree with Chase, he had to have dirt on a lot of people.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

I think "what no one wants to talk about" is that this might be much, much bigger. I agree we've been doing that here and there's been some mention within the media, but most of the theories on motive are that they just wanted to save the school's and Paterno's reputation. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

My bad -- I misunderstood what Bloom was saying.

 

[[icon]]

Penn State Scandal: Rumor Claims Sandusky “Pimped Out” Boys to Rich Donors

 

[Black Box]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

I think "what no one wants to talk about" is that this might be much, much bigger. I agree we've been doing that here and there's been some mention within the media, but most of the theories on motive are that they just wanted to save the school's and Paterno's reputation. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

The best way I can see it is that the powers that be thought they handed out enough punishment to Sandusky by not allowing him to stay on with coaching/be the heir apparent to Paterno.As twisted as that logic is, I could see it in this case.

 

[Zow]

Sandusky must have had some serious leverage over the program to be allowed to stay on.

But what leverage is serious enough to cover for child rape? It seems you're not believing the simple "They just wanted to save the reputation of Penn State and Penn State football" reasoning? I don't think recruiting violations are really any more serious than that, mainly because recruiting violations would mostly just be a shot to their reputation. OK, so there's also some financial implications, but none of that is even remotely more serious than covering child rape.So, if we don't buy that "reputation" is necessarily a believable reason to cover this up, the theory has to be something much, much, much bigger and would have to involve those involved in the cover up.

It may not have been a cover up at all but instead hopefuly ignorance/willful denial by several of the top people that someone who, by most prior accounts, appeared to be a really good guy. The news/allegations were so shocking they their minds just couldn't believe it so they dismissed it as a coping mechanism and moved on with the status quo. I know this may seem unbelievable, but it is very consistent with a common criminal trial law theory that it is actually much harder to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty of a heinous crime (i.e. child rape) than a non-heinous (i.e. DUI) because the average juror cannot visualize himself committing something so heinous and therefore his mind has a block in concluding that someone else could, whereas he has probably driven drunk at some point in his life and knows that a normal looking person could totally commit a DUI.

Another way to look at this would be too imagine, say, a close friend or co-worker being accused of something incredibly awful. Do you think you would tackle that immediately head on or would you have some skepticism? Heck, wouldn't you want to doubt it to avoid the inner turmoil of knowing you are friends/associates with someone evil? Therefore, wouldn't the best way to settle with yourself be to say "I'm going to pretend this didn't happen" and then ignore it and assume it to be false and rationalize that by saying to yourself, "well, I've never personally seen him do anything and he is just as nice as always so it must not be true."

I think the PSU leaders just didn't want to believe someone they were close to was so evil, so they denied it and allowed Sandusky to stay around as a way to cope. It's certainly not the right thing to do, but I think it could explain why they did what they did without there having to be some conspiracy behidn this where Sandusky had leverage on people. Personally, I'd find that theory much more likely if this were a scenario where Sandusky was accused of committing financial crimes/white collar crimes than can be easily explained by greed - as opposed to what he did which can only by an evil motivation.

I'd also add that I don't know what Sandusky could have had over the entire University to get them to allow him to stay around campus. I think PSU is way too big and way too profitable above board to ever dip into something so awful or need booster money so badly that a child rapist has leverage over them. Heck, PSU would be risking so much (i.e. see exactly what has happened) to do this. I just don't see that as a likely possibility.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

I think "what no one wants to talk about" is that this might be much, much bigger. I agree we've been doing that here and there's been some mention within the media, but most of the theories on motive are that they just wanted to save the school's and Paterno's reputation. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

The best way I can see it is that the powers that be thought they handed out enough punishment to Sandusky by not allowing him to stay on with coaching/be the heir apparent to Paterno.As twisted as that logic is, I could see it in this case.

Yeah, but I have a hard time believing that anybody could really be that stupid in real life. I get that it's a possibility, but it seems like a stretch.

 

[Parrothead]

did the other thread get too crowded?

 

[tri-man 47]

McQueary and the whistle blower issue - the incident he observed was in March, 2002. The law that created the whistleblower policy (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) was not passed until a few months after that time. So as I see it, McQueary was not acting under formal whistleblower laws. I don't think he is protected in that manner.

The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

 

[dgreen]

The best way I can see it is that the powers that be thought they handed out enough punishment to Sandusky by not allowing him to stay on with coaching/be the heir apparent to Paterno.As twisted as that logic is, I could see it in this case.

So, in 1999, they figured they had given a proper punishment and that the punishment was probably enough to change future behavior. They'd let him hang around because they didn't imagine what could possibly come next. But, then in 2002 when McQueary reports what he saw, they thought, "Uh oh, we made a HUGE mistake. We have to keep this quiet."

 

[pollardsvision]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

Dear Todd -

Please feel free to begin using the acronym C.R.E. I think by now, we'll all know what you mean. I'd hate the idea of you getting tired from having to spot those words repeatedly and being unable to post here anymore.

 

[Black Box]

THIS X1000 - this is what no one wants to talk about. Sandusky wasn't just not turned over to authorities or allowed on campus any more. He retained all of the trappings of royalty around the place and used those things to ensnare more victims. It sounds like the football facilities was his preferred place to rape his victims at times. Let that sink in. The entire PSU football program was basically an accessory/aider/abetter in his activities as a serial child rapist. And that might not even be the most disturbing revelation that comes out by the time this is over.

Sorry to nitpick because I agree completely with what you're saying, but a bazillion of us have been talking about exactly this. That's why I'm so appalled by Paterno. He's the guy who allowed this stuff to happen. No way is Sandusky hanging around the team without Paterno's blessing.

I think "what no one wants to talk about" is that this might be much, much bigger. I agree we've been doing that here and there's been some mention within the media, but most of the theories on motive are that they just wanted to save the school's and Paterno's reputation. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

The best way I can see it is that the powers that be thought they handed out enough punishment to Sandusky by not allowing him to stay on with coaching/be the heir apparent to Paterno.As twisted as that logic is, I could see it in this case.

Yeah, but I have a hard time believing that anybody could really be that stupid in real life. I get that it's a possibility, but it seems like a stretch.

Agree, but if Paterno&Co really held themselves in such high regard, they could see what they were doing as the worst possible punishment.Take this one as the "delusional" explanation. The other one is the "skeleton" explanation. Though I suppose both could be at play.

 

[Raider Nation]

I am shocked that Joe's Jedi Mind Trick in that statement Wednesday morning didn't work.

 

[dgreen]

Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.

I think it involves telling any authorities, which would include higher ups within the organization. Him telling Paterno and then discussing the issue with Curly and that other guy are whistle blowing actions.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.

He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.

I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

Whistle blower laws protect people from being disciplined for reporting unethical/illegal conduct outside of the organization.

 

[dgreen]

I am shocked that Joe's Jedi Mind Trick in that statement Wednesday morning didn't work.

I'd say it probably hurt his case, but I think he was gone either way.

 

[Black Box]

The best way I can see it is that the powers that be thought they handed out enough punishment to Sandusky by not allowing him to stay on with coaching/be the heir apparent to Paterno.As twisted as that logic is, I could see it in this case.

So, in 1999, they figured they had given a proper punishment and that the punishment was probably enough to change future behavior. They'd let him hang around because they didn't imagine what could possibly come next. But, then in 2002 when McQueary reports what he saw, they thought, "Uh oh, we made a HUGE mistake. We have to keep this quiet."

And I'm sure Sandusky would have laid it on thick in '99. These men all knew each other for many years, their kids grew up together, etc, etc. I think we've already seen how low of a regard they all have with the actual victims in the case. I can definitely see this as a possibility.

 

[drfeelgood]

The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

I don't think PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, and I think the football program will survive. Penn State has a great fanbase, and I think they will support and welcome a new era.

 

[krista4]

McQueary and the whistle blower issue - the incident he observed was in March, 2002. The law that created the whistleblower policy (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) was not passed until a few months after that time. So as I see it, McQueary was not acting under formal whistleblower laws. I don't think he is protected in that manner. The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

SOX implemented whistleblower laws regarding financial fraud in public companies and has nothing to do with this. There are many other whistleblower laws both before and after.

 

[Smack Tripper]

They should have let him coach the last home game OR canceled the season.

If only to prevent what happened last night from regenerating with more organization and momentum. To go the half route of firing Joe Pa, but continuing the season and continuing mcqueary is not really demonstrating an awareness of the magnitude of things.

How do you have a football team dress in a locker room where this filth unfolded? This will be a #### show of fhe highest order and the real high road would have been to walk.

At least they should donate Saturday and all bowl revenue to RAINN or another abuse organization

 

[IvanKaramazov]

The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

I don't think PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, and I think the football program will survive. Penn State has a great fanbase, and I think they will support and welcome a new era.

Agreed. People are overestimating the impact of this. Everybody currently affiliated with the football program is going to be gone in a few weeks, a new AD will be hired, and things will start over with a clean slate.

 

[Doug B]

If they kicked him out right away, what would Sandusky have on Penn State? Just that they didn't go to the cops? But to bring that out, he has to admit to being a child molester.

Who knows what picadillos Sandusky had on Paterno, the PSU president, other school civic leaders and administrators, the football program, etc.? Suppose he knew that Paterno had multiple student girlfriends over the years? That the board of trustees catered parties with hookers? That local business executives gave large donations to his foundation to have sex with young boys? That there were multiple recruiting infractions that could have lost the school all their scholarships?

The biggest nuclear bomb that Sandusky could conceivably have had in his back pocket was that Spanier, Curley, and/or others up the chain were actually "johns" to Sandusky's rumored pimping operation.Chase is right that this could get way uglier.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Right, but what could THIS be? Even this latest pimping rumor only works if somehow the administration was involved. I guess it could be that Sandusky openly admitted all his faults in detail to the school in 1998 and they did nothing. And then when they approach him in 2002, he can say, "You evict me and I tell everyone what you knew 4 years ago." But, as mr roboto pointed out, he's putting himself in prison at that point (which maybe he wants, in a way).

I don't buy the simple "reputation" reason that most people are assuming. But, I'm having a hard time imagining what THIS would be in your theory without getting really crazy and going way out there.

Heard some speculation on a local radio show that maybe Sandusky with some other Penn State officials (maybe even Paterno) were running a slush fund through the Second Mile. Not saying that the foundation didn't also do good, charitable work, but it would be a good cover for hiding money.ETA - Complete and total conspiracy theory on my part, but if the Second Mile was fronting some sort of "player paying" or other monetary laundering scheme, which could have been going on for years prior to the 1999-2002 stuff, it would make sense why Penn State couldn't just toss Sandusky to the curb or turn him over to the authorities.

 

[krista4]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

No. Whistleblower laws and regulations generally apply to internal, up-the-ladder reporting as well.

 

[jackdubl]

did the other thread get too crowded?

No, this one was moved from the Shark Pool.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

No. Whistleblower laws and regulations generally apply to internal, up-the-ladder reporting as well.

But, it has no application here, because McQueary would not be disciplined for reporting the incident.

 

[dgreen]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

No. Whistleblower laws and regulations generally apply to internal, up-the-ladder reporting as well.

But, it has no application here, because McQueary would not be disciplined for reporting the incident.

Correct. I think this conversation began when someone mentioned they heard it mentioned on the radio as a possible reason McQueary hadn't been fired.

 

[jackdubl]

McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.

 

[Zegras11]

I'm just dumbfounded that Paterno would let this happen and not want to defend all he had worked for his entire life.

At the very least if I was him, I'd want to protect my legacy and I'd do everything possible to protect it. How could he be so ####### stupid and not think of this.

Color me in the camp that this will be 10000x worse than right now.

What would John Wooden do?

 

[BroadwayG]

McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.

He didn't?

 

[Pipes]

The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

I don't think PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, and I think the football program will survive. Penn State has a great fanbase, and I think they will support and welcome a new era.

Agreed. People are overestimating the impact of this. Everybody currently affiliated with the football program is going to be gone in a few weeks, a new AD will be hired, and things will start over with a clean slate.

I'm not so sure. They have to replace the President, AD and entire coaching staff. There will be no coaches to help with the transition of the current players to new regime and the system they operate. On top of that there is a huge stigma attached to the university now. I'm not saying Penn State football is dead but it's going to suffer for the next few years.

 

[ClownCausedChaos]

I'm just dumbfounded that Paterno would let this happen and not want to defend all he had worked for his entire life.At the very least if I was him, I'd want to protect my legacy and I'd do everything possible to protect it. How could he be so ####### stupid and not think of this.Color me in the camp that this will be 10000x worse than right now.What would John Wooden do?

Probably not a whole lot. He's dead.

 

[krista4]

Speaking on the radio, former PA Governor Ed Rendell doesn't believe McQueary can be protected by any whistle blower laws. Though I have no idea of his expertise on this issue. FWIW.

I'm not familiar with whistleblowing laws, but I'm not sure why the word is being tossed around. It seems to me that McQ did the opposite of blow the whistle.He told powerful people within the organization. Wouldn't blowing the whistle involve telling the authorities.I think PSU will have trouble firing him, but not for whistleblowing laws. It sounds like he did what he was told (which is the problem, morally).

No. Whistleblower laws and regulations generally apply to internal, up-the-ladder reporting as well.

But, it has no application here, because McQueary would not be disciplined for reporting the incident.

Oh, I completely agree. Was merely correcting the misperception that it had to be reported externally to qualify.

 

[johnadams]

To me, the bigger story now is the fact that anyone actually defends Paterno. Disgusting.

 

[mad sweeney]

an argument in defense of McQueary is that he was just an assistant. he didn't have the power, authority, or responsibility that someone like Paterno and the others had.he made an awful decision not to intervene or call the police himself, and also appears to have remained silent during the cover up. but he likely isn't getting nearly as much heat as the others have.still can't imagine him sticking around the program much longer.

I think naturally the focus will start to turn towards him. Naturally Paterno coverage will still be dominant, because JP is Penn State, but the next target will be be the coward.

 

[Sammy3469]

The football program - I could see it fading on its own. I would expect the NCAA to release the football players from their scholarship commitments. How could they not? PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, much less recruiting good players. So who will be left to play for the team?

I don't think PSU will have a hard time finding coaches, and I think the football program will survive. Penn State has a great fanbase, and I think they will support and welcome a new era.

Agreed. People are overestimating the impact of this. Everybody currently affiliated with the football program is going to be gone in a few weeks, a new AD will be hired, and things will start over with a clean slate.

It depends on what else comes out, but conceivably the NCAA could also come in at some point and shut them down.I also think the Feds get involved in a serious way at some point. Sandusky did take these kids across state lines. I'm not a lawyer, but I ahve to assume that violates some Federal law and that if they wanted they could try to make some conspiracy case against all the "grown-ups" at PSU. If either of those happen, I could see PSU not have a football season next year (and we also don't know what's going to happen when some of the victims start getting interviewed in the media). It's going to get uglier for PSU before it gets better.

 

[jackdubl]

McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.

He didn't?

When you witness a crime, the only person you tell is your boss? That's called not reporting it. Hey, there's an arsonist setting an apartment building on fire! I'd better call my boss quick!

 

[BroadwayG]

McQueary didn't report it, it got covered up, he got promoted. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. He needs to go, too.

He didn't?

When you witness a crime, the only person you tell is your boss? That's called not reporting it. Hey, there's an arsonist setting an apartment building on fire! I'd better call my boss quick!

Actually that is called reporting it. What he didn't do was stop it from occurring.