Joe Paterno Knew of Sandusky Abuse Allegations as Early as 1976, Insurance Company Claims

NBCNews.com ^ | May 6, 2016 | Alex Johnson and Tom Winter

[Colofornian]

The late Penn State University football coach Joe Paterno knew about sexual abuse allegations against former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky as early as 1976, according to an assertion in a Philadelphia court order made public Thursday.

The claim emerged in a dispute over who should pay Penn State's share of about $60 million in settlements with 26 men who say Sandusky abused them when they were children — the university or its insurance company.

Previously, the abuse was widely thought to have occurred from 1994 through 2008, when Sandusky ran a youth charity called Second Mile.

But in the new order, dated Wednesday, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Gary S. Glazer wrote in passing that the insurance company, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance, had claimed that "in 1976, a child allegedly reported to PSU's Head Coach Joseph Paterno that he (the child) was sexually molested by Sandusky."

According to the order, the insurance company further claims that in 1987 and 1988, other assistant coaches witnessed "inappropriate" or "sexual" conduct between Sandusky and children, and that in 1988, a similar allegation was referred to Penn State's athletic director.

The order was first reported by the Patriot-News of Harrisburg...

[Wolfie]

Yep, that’s a puzzler. But hey, if it gets them out of paying millions, it’s lie well worth telling.

[LadyDoc]

The big scandal of the Altoona diocese might have something to do with it...when I lived in the area in the early 1990s our catholic newspaper bragged about how gay friendly the church was.

there was also a lot of judicial corruption there.

But I hate to tell you, in the 1970s most of these accusations were dismissed as wishful thinking under Freudian theory, and other leading psychiatrists insisted early sex was good for younger adolescents.

[Wolfie]

Could be as well...the point is there is not enough proof to let the insurance company off the hook, which is what this particular case is about.

[outpostinmass2]

A simple question that a responsible media should ask: since there is no corroboration, how does a kid not old enough to drive gain an audience with Paterno?

---

You mean like how did a few kids in Boston gain an audience with a bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal? It goes like this: Kid is poor, family is broken and the mother is happy that he has an accomplished adult male taking interest in him. Kid finally spills gut to the mother and she calls the Archdiocese. Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal says not this shit again, I need to talk to the kid and mother and keep this out of the press. Gets in car and drives to the home. Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal makes everything better and says he has some money to fix up the kitchen.

[JonPreston]

Or Penn State and the Paterno’s were lying to cover their ass

*********

If Paterno were trying to protect the football program in 1976, why would retain a child molester on his coaching staff?

[outpostinmass2]

I could care less about the insurance company and I agree it is in their best interest. But...Penn state should not be left off the hook either. Predators only stop molesting when they are locked up. There are more victims and there are people at Penn State who know this.

[DCBryan1]

Joepologist

The worst was FlJoePa

Anyways.....worth repeating. Anything to tell the truth of Pedo state and Joe Pa (may he rest in Hell) child-rape enabler. Previous FR thread

[outpostinmass2]

If Paterno were trying to protect the football program in 1976, why would retain a child molester on his coaching staff?

---

Why did Paterno keep Sandusky on the staff after 1994?

[DCBryan1]

Where’s FLJoePa?

P.O.S. Child-rape defender FlJoePa CHECKED OUT like coward HERE.

[stig]

Indeed. The statement was “claims”. If there is rock-solid evidence, by all means we should believe it. But right now it does mostly sound like he-said she-said. Still, it also is suspicious when several stories pop up. The point from the insurance company perspective is that Penn State and their agent Joe Paterno were aware of "claims" as early as 1976 and took no official action. The insurance company is trying to show negligence, that's their out. The university would have to come up with the money themselves and not rely on the insurance company. The insurance company is not responsible to pay if their client was negligent in their duty to investigate allegations that could have prevented the subsequent abuse and fostered an environment where Sandusky was essentially protected from investigation it shows negligence on the part of the school administration.

I'm sure the insurance policy was written to give them an out for various circumstances. That is what they are arguing in court, it doesn't matter if the claim was unsubstantiated what matters is: did the University and their staff follow proper procedures when allegations were brought to light? We will never know what Paterno knew or didn't know unless he kept a diary or something. But he was negligent with the reputation of his program at the very least. I haven't reviewed all the evidence but at the very least you could say he was in denial about what was going on inside his program. My recollection is that he knew sent it up the chain of command and never gave it another thought. Strange actions for accusations that could take down you entire football program.

[outpostinmass2]

The worst was FlJoePa

---

He was banned.

[JonPreston]

That isn’t what happened.

We’re being asked to believe this man, now in his mid 50s (+/-), did nothing for 40 years after telling Paterno, then watched the Sandusky saga unfold in 2011, waited an additional 4 years (2015) before contacting the lawyer who handled 9 other victim cases and received a settlement, with no vetting of the case. This because Penn State believed all costs were covered by insurance.

I wouldn’t pay Penn State either if I were the insurance co.

[Wolfie]

I’m with you there too. But in my mind the insurance company go into bed with a bunch of scumbags, so they’re stuck with that decision.

[JonPreston]

I’m not sure of the importance of 1994.

[Kay Ludlow]

Well, any benefit of the doubt I gave Joe (but not Curley or Spanier) is gone. I could buy that he did something, but later decided it was not enough. I was suspicious of his claim that he didn't remember hearing about any other incidents, because the 1998 case with the kid from Lock Haven was all over the local papers. But now, saying he knew about cases in 1976, 1988, 1989, just screams out that it just wasn't that big of deal to Joe. Sad to say, that's likely the fact. Maybe he'd have felt differently if it was one of HIS kids.

[DCBryan1]

I'll say it again. Glad JoePa is dead....and child molesters should die by SCAPHISM

[outpostinmass2]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/07/justice/pennsylvania-coach-abuse-timeline/

[outpostinmass2]

http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20151128/NEWS/151129351

Oh I believe it because happens all the time just like the attached story. Do you believe Sandusky only started his reign of terror in 1994 and only to 12 poor souls? I don’t at all.

[outpostinmass2]

I worked for an insurance company once. We had all sorts of scumbags for clients. In this case I would say it would be very tough for the insurance company to know what was going on in Happy Valley.

[JonPreston]

I’m not defending Sandusky, I’m simply discussing this particular case and the typical shoddy media treatment of events.

The Grand Jury timeline you linked shows that Paterno became involved on March 2, 2002.