I don't think Joe was a required reporter at that point (as McQueary's father and Dranov ironically both were the night before). I also don't consider Schultz the "police".
Other than that, this guy says what many people PSU Alums think and what Phil Knight had the guts to state.
The botching of this happened above Joe Paterno.
“Most people are as unaware of the basic fact as they are that Sandusky was a FORMER Penn State assistant at the time McQueary came to him. In Paterno’s mind Sandusky was no longer his responsibility.”
Sorry, but wasn’t Sandusky still hanging around, with young boys, at the Penn State facilities after this incident? Paterno had no responsibility in that regard? Color me skeptical.
Sick.
I guess it wasn't “rape rape” when the kid was screaming so loud he thought for sure Sandusky’s wife would hear and come to his rescue.
While I agree with all the defenses here, there’s still more that folks don’t seem to get. No one in the media (including Fox) has made any connection at all to gay rights, gay education (even in elementary schools), or gay marriage. To cling to the hope (or blindness) that homosexuality is restricted to consenting adults is either ignorance or insanity. Whether the contact is loving or lustful or violent, the child is damaged.
I disagree with this assumption. Sandusky was forced against his will to retire in 1999. I believe the 1998 occurrence was the reason.
As far as the boy in the shower, I'm very aware that this boy was never found. My question is , didn't Paterno wonder why Sandusky was walking about free? Didn't he have any curiosity regarding the investigation? Or was reporting the incidence enough for him? I'm sure if he had any interest in this young boy's well being he could have asked the Penn campus police what was going on and they would have told the great Joe Parterno anything he wanted to know.
I can think of something else "most people still don't 'get'," and that's this:
Is there any connection between Mr Sandusky's criminal activities and the April 2005 disappearance of Ray Gricar.
From the Wikipedia page for Mr. Gricar:
He continued, "You've got his car being found, locked with cellphones inside. The computers found and the hard drive is found there in the river. The body is never found. Looks to me like it was staged."After the revelations about the Penn State sex abuse scandal in which it was revealed that Gricar had declined to prosecute Jerry Sandusky, well-known forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht said that "I believe that his disappearance is almost certainly related to this Penn State debacle."
From what I’ve read, Paterno had power and influence far above what you would expect from a typical football coach. Paterno must have known why Sandusky suddenly retired in 1999, and why he suspiciously wasn’t given another coaching job.
The main reason the victim was never identified in the shower incident witnessed by McQueary, is because everybody in Penn State kept this information in-house, all of them agreeing to a cover-up. (It’s silly to think that talking to the administrator technically in charge of the PD is the same as reporting a crime.)
McQueary telephoned his father, and they waited until the next day to meet with Paterno. Paterno waited another day before notifying the head of the athletic department. That guy waited even longer to notify his boss, and no police investigation was ever started. NONE of these people ever considered the 10-yr old victim, or took steps to identify him. It was the cover-up itself that made it possible for Sandusky’s shower victim to remain unidentified, and eliminated any chance for him to be examined by medical professionals, or interviewed by experts trained to deal with juvenile victims.
When told by McQueary about the shower incident, all Paterno had to do was tell McQueary to immediately accompany him to the police station, and instruct McQueary to tell the police what he had seen in the shower. That’s exactly what any competent administrator would have done. Paterno was as big a part of the cover-up as anybody else. Unfortunately, for the purposes of hiding the identity of the 10-yr old victim and making him unavailable to be examined and interviewed, the cover-up was a success.
From Paterno on up, I’m disgusted with these people and anybody who defends their actions.
I am very much aware of that fact, and it is one of the most disturbing aspects of the case.
Couldn't the reason that there was no "known victim" in that incident be because that pussy McQueary witnessed the sexual assault and allowed Sandusky (who knew he'd been seen committing child rape) to leave with the boy?
And when McQueary told his father and Paterno about it, and Paterno told other Penn State officials, not one of them ever tried to locate that poor boy and see if he needed help or was even still alive.
The child rapist was caught red handed and left with his victim, whom nobody ever heard from again.
How the writer of this piece considers that dark fact somehow exculpatory is beyond me.
It's positively chilling.
I believe the writer is biased.
” I have made it my business to know all of the facts about this case.”
__________
Ransomnote Says:
He doesn’t limit his article to the ‘facts’, he tells us his interpretation of them.
__________
“In my experience there are many important elements which, thanks in large part to poor media coverage, are not just lost on the general public, but which the average person simply refuses to accept as reality, even when they are directly told about them. Most incredibly, I have found that this is even true with a lot of Penn State supporters who, seemingly out of guilt and fear of being seen as not accepting reality, have bought into largely suspect narratives.”
__________________
Ransomnote Says:
I think this is biased framing of those, even former supporters, who disagree with his interpretation of the ‘facts’.
________________
“Here are the most important things that, at least in my experience, most people just don’t “get” about the Jerry Sandusky scandal.”
_________________
Ransomnote Says:
Again - I think he departs from his fake focus on ‘facts’ here and is really playing interpreter -showing how the facts should be interpreted.
________________
“Without a doubt, the number one item on this list is that there is no known victim from the episode witnessed by Mike McQueary, which got so much of the media coverage and which ultimately resulted in Paterno’s firing. When I tell people this fact they think that I am either joking or that I simply mean that the victim just doesn’t want to be identified.”
_______________
Ransomnote Says:
I forget the name of the hearing that is held to determine whether to file charges, is it a grand jury that is empaneled? Whatever the name of that first legal hurdle was, the ‘panel’ found McQuery believable.
Sandusky was found guilty of other rape charges but the ‘problem’ with the shower incident the writer focuses on is the identity of the 10 year old rape victim.
We know that Sandusky was found guilty of raping children, we don’t know the name of of this victim. We know that some victims of horrible trauma like childhood sex abuse never make it to adulthood because they become suicidal or become drug addicts etc. So there is an unidentified victim said to be in a shower with Sandusky who is known to have raped other children fitting that description. What to do? Look at McQueary’s testimony. The jury believed his testimony in Sandusky’s trial.
Quoting an online analysis of the trial outcomes “The jury’s conclusion that McQueary observed indecent assault and unlawful contact with a minor demonstrated that the jury believed McQueary saw something improper and illegal, but not necessarily actual sex, as he admitted.”
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/23/12370562-analysis-number-of-victims-persuaded-sandusky-jurors-in-he-said-he-said-case?lite
So in the case of things like child rape or child pornography, sometimes a young child is not identified by name and at that point they look at who reported what and the credibility of those people. A custodian also reported having seen this kind of sexual activity with Sandusky and a boy in the shower and it put him in a state of shock. The write doesn’t mention that. I believe the writer implies that people don’t realize that the shower victim was never identified and therefore Paterno was innocent and acted properly. But Paterno believed McQeary enough to a) report him to a campus police person and b) treat McQeary like he was honest and trustworthy for years following the report.
___________________________
“Neither is true. Despite worldwide media coverage and the likelihood of a huge civil case paycheck, no one has ever come forward in any way to say that they were raped or abused by Sandusky in the Penn State showers on the day McQueary says he saw something awful.”
___________________________
Ransomnote Says:
The writer says “Despite worldwide media coverage, no one has come forward...” He really should have said “Perhaps because of worldwide media coverage, no adult male having been repeatedly raped by the football ‘hero’ throughout their childhood was emotionally able (or alive) to brave the media storm and the hatred of Paterno’s rabid fans to speak of the worst, most destructive trauma they received at the tender age of 10 (or whatever age).” I mean, it is touch for children who were raped to face it let alone brave the insane media storm and rabid fans. That’s why the jury turned to McQueary re the show rape. And note the writer qualifies that no one says they were raped ON THAT EXACT DAY. I really doubt children would remember the date they were raped but that’s just me.
__________________________
“Not only is there no known victim from the McQueary episode, incredibly, the only known witness to the event got the date it happened wrong. McQueary didn’t just get the day of this seemingly momentous incident wrong. He also got the month wrong. And the even the year! The only thing more remarkable than this inexplicable lapse in memory (how do you forget the year in which something like that happened unless you only thought it was extremely significant years later?), was that the very same media which covered the initial McQueary allegation as if it was a presidential assassination, barely even mentioned this startling revelation which came to light just before the trial.”
_______________________
Ransomnote Says:
How do we know McQueary got it wrong? How do we know that no victim came forward to report that occurred on that date? Because the date was recorded by the campus police. Paterno believed there was something to report, he believed McQueary was trustworthy enough to report it. Making a big deal about McQueary totally lousing up the correct date isn’t much of an issue if there is record with the campus police of a report.
______________________
“Two other facts about McQueary, which have been lost in the avalanche of information about the case, are that he told a doctor friend that he never saw any sex and that he went out of his way to participate in at least two events hosted by Sandusky after the scene in the shower. Both of these issues came up at trial (the jury even asked to have the doctor’s testimony read back during deliberations) and probably played a role in one of the verdicts.”
___________________________
Ransomnote Says:
The reason Sandusky was not given a ‘guilty’ verdict on the case reported by McQueary is because McQueary always admitted he didn’t see, specifically ‘sex’ as in ‘anal rape’ but was reporting sexual activity. McQueary said this to Paterno, the initial panel (grand jury?) and at the trial, so why wouldn’t he say it to a doctor?
________________________________
” It turns out that, after all of the coverage of the McQueary allegation and the resulting ignominious ending of a 60 year era at Penn State football and the death of a legend, Sandusky was actually acquitted of the rape charge from that allegation.”
_____________________________
Ransomnote Says:
I don’t think the writer ‘gets’ that the Jury believed McQueary and the other rape victims, but carefully reviewed testimony on this case and didn’t find evidence (Mcqueary said he didn’t see actual anal rape) to convict on that charge but convicted Sandusky on two other charges for that specific shower event. Paterno wasn’t sent to an ignomius end by the lack of evidence of anal rape.
Again, repeated an excerpt from the analysis I linke, “the jury believed McQueary saw something improper and illegal, but not necessarily actual sex, as he admitted.” Paterno lost his career for failing to report (to the police, not campus police) and address ‘improper and illegal’ activity involving the abuse of a child which was reported to him.
_________________________
“The reality is that this verdict proves that the grand jury report should never have described what McQueary witnessed as an “anal rape.” That one phrase dramatically altered the narrative of the entire saga. Without it, I honestly believe that media firestorm is greatly diminished “
__________________________________
Ransomnote Says:
Again, the reporter implies that McQueary had to actual witness instance anal rape and not just that specific instance of illegal and improper behavior (Sandusky and a boy in the shower) in order for Paterno to be responsible for reporting sexual abuse of a child to the ‘real’ police and to see to it that Sandusky was barred from further access to the showers at the school in which Paterno was coach. Paterno had influence and he chose to deploy it in the protection of his schools reputation in stead of acting to protect children being abused by Sandusky. It was his choice.
__________________________
“Most people, even in the news media, are also unaware that there was only one other allegation of actual rape (interestingly the mother of that victim does not blame Penn State or Paterno at all) in the grand jury report, which is probably why the prosecutors stretched too far on the McQueary incident. All of the other most egregious allegations came about because new victims came forward after all of the initial publicity. All of the many accusers at trial created the misimpression that there was a mountain of evidence at the time of Paterno’s firing. This just wasn’t the case.”
___________________________
Ransomnote Says:
So it would have been ok if Paterno betrayed one sexually abused child? He should have kept his career then? It only matters if the public thinks Paterno ignored a MOUNTAIN of evidence instead of the innocence of a boy. Paterno knew Sandusky ran a charity for children. Sandusky’s proclivities were known. All Paterno did was distance himself (Really do you think Sanduksy was so committed to his charity that he’d just not pull away to spend time with coaching? That was Paterno’s cover for why he dumped Sandusky.)
______________________
“Similarly, people I speak to have a very difficult time separating what we now know about what a monster Sandusky is and what information Paterno apparently had at the time when he decided all that he had to do was notify his superiors. Based on the current evidence, all Paterno knew was that a graduate assistant had sort of witnessed Sandusky engaging in highly inappropriate contact of a sexual nature in a Penn State shower.”
_____________________
Ransomnote Says:
Is anyone as repulsed as I am reading that? One sexually abused child or eight of them - you go to the police because a child deserves a protection and help and a hope for some kind of future.
______________________
“This leads to the next misunderstanding surrounding how easy it would have been for Paterno or anyone else to pin a child molester label on Sandsky. “
______________________
Ransomnote Says:
No one said that Paterno had to pin a child molester label on Sandusky. Plenty of us believe he had to report the information he received regarding the sexual activity taking place between a man and a child in the showers as reported to him.
_____________________________
“Sandusky was a local hero and ran a huge charity on which thousands of people relied. A false charge of child molester would have been devastating to many people and irreversible.”
____________________________
Ransomnote Says:
And Paterno was the ‘winningest coach ever!’. Paterno would not charge Sandusky with molestation - he would report it to the proper authorities and they would investigate. Sandusky would have to accept the fact that activity reported to Paterno had to be relayed to the proper authorities by Paterno (if he had done his job) regardless of their friendship or Paterno’s own opinion.
____________________________________________________
“ Most people are as unaware of the basic fact as they are that Sandusky was a FORMER Penn State assistant at the time McQueary came to him. In Paterno’s mind Sandusky was no longer his responsibility.”
____________________________
Ransomnote Says:
Again, this is repulsive. Sandusky was no longer Paterno’s responsibility - but the child being molested in campus football team showers on Paterno’s watch WAS. Do we really only report molesters if they are currently employed with us?
___________________________
“While numerous email are being made public which indicate other Penn State officials may have participated in a cover up, there is not even one relevant mention of Joe Paterno.”
__________________________
Ransomnote Says:
Pathetic...do I need to explain why?
__________________________
“If people still want to think that the crimes of Jerry Sandusky were really the fault of Joe Paterno or someone else, that is fine with me.”
_________________________
Ransomnote Says:
I’ve only heard people say Paterno failed in his responsibility to act, not that he was responsible for the crimes of Jerry Sandusky. But, this is just another biased attempt by the writer to shape the facts for us.
________________________
“People are entitled to their own opinions. They just should have all the facts before they come to their conclusions.”
_______________________
Ransomnote Says:
The jury knew the facts and found McQueary believable, as did Paterno. There is evidence that Paterno reported to the campus police only and then distanced himself. THose are the facts.
“all Paterno knew was that a graduate assistant had sort of witnessed Sandusky engaging in highly inappropriate contact of a sexual nature in a Penn State shower.”
Highly inappropriate is a professor with a college student in the shower.
A middle aged man having sex with a young boy in the showers is freakin rape. Forget the “required reporter” cop out, anyone who knew this was happening had a duty to report it and make sure it was handled. That includes the cops who apparently ignored these crimes.
Apparently folks are willing for fatherless boys to be raped in order to protect their sports business.
Yes, we understand clearly.
The kindest conclusion you can come to about Paterno's involvement is that he was very busy and was simply negligent while a pedophile he wasn't entirely aware of was ruining his legacy and reputation. I find that at best, very sad and very disturbing.
The worst that you can surmise was that Paterno knew the whole story, and was involved with the cover up with other people at Penn State in order to save the legend and football machine he had created there.
The truth is likely somewhere in between, but we will probably never know what actually happened. All we know is that a lot of young boys were irreparably scarred for life and shattered while a record was being made for a legend that is now entirely tarnished, even if you come to the kindest of conclusions.
Yes it is good to sort out the facts when the dust settles. There was more people than just Jerry to blame. I see in the future that Penn State will be paying a whole lot of money when the lawyers are finished. What we need to remember is the victims.
The homo/pedophile community and their sympathizers demonizes anyone who stands up to them without a conviction. The name the victims and witnesses liars. It takes a lot of courage to stand up because you will be named wierd - even a homophobe - for standing up to an unconvicted homo wierdo.
Pedophiles thrive in secrecy and keeping everyone in fear of them. Joe could have messed all that up by being open with everybody in football, in administration, and within the charity, that Sandusky was suspect in his eyes and he could have asked for all eyes to watch him based on him taking boys into the shower with him and acting inappropriately.
Heck, in his position, he could have brought in experts to speak to the whole football program about why boys don’t tell, how they get entrapped by sexual predators, how sexual predators operate, what is appropriate and inappropriate contact between men and boys and what to look for and what to do if you see signs of abuse.
McQueary never told the doctor that. What the doctor friend, Jonathan Dranov, M.D., said was that whenever he pushed McQueary on that point, McQueary would break down. To quote from Dranov's testimony:
“He couldn’t go on. He just seemed to get more upset."
Dranov asked him three times and all three times McQueary broke down when asked whether he saw sex. Dranov also testified on cross that he knew McQeary and had never seen him break down like that over anything.
The fact is: McQueary NEVER told Dr. Dranov he didn't see sex. McQueary couldn't answer the question the three times he was asked it by Dranov.
To what extent did the fact that Penn State celebrated a gay friendly environment (as per the agenda of its president) contribute to the suppression of Sandusky’s crimes?
Were McQueery and Paterno intimidated to some extent?
Would this have happened at the University of Nebraska?