Uncovered e-mails close book on (Penn State football coach Joe) Paterno's legacy

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | June 30, 2012 | Scott Ostler

[Zakeet]

The Penn State horror story has taken a twist for the sicker.

And Joe Paterno's legacy is now more clearly defined.

E-mails have been uncovered by NBC. Three scared sheep - Penn State's president, vice president and athletic director - were going to alert the real authorities to the possible misdeeds of Jerry Sandusky, until the athletic director spoke with Paterno and persuaded the other two Sheep not to be so rash.

Subsequently, at least four more young boys were molested by Sandusky.

Paterno apparently persuaded the group to go easy on old Jerry. The athletic director, Tim Curley, e-mailed the other Sheep, "If Sandusky is cooperative, we would work with him."

Astounding. The Three Sheep, part of a huge flock of JoPa worshipers, decided that confronting Sandusky rather than turning him in "is a more humane and up-front way to handle this."

More humane, unless you're a 10-year-old kid and Jerry Sandusky is in your driveway a week later, the old Tickle Monster, honking his horn, bearing gifts.

By the way, the "upfront" confrontation with Sandusky apparently consisted of asking the former assistant coach not to bring his little boys on campus anymore. Friendly advice that Sandusky ignored.

Only Paterno knows why he wanted his Three Sheep to call off the dogs. Was it out of compassion for Sandusky, or out of concern that Paterno's program and his legacy might take a hit?

To at least four young victims of abuse, that distinction probably isn't important.

[9YearLurker]

Just the portions released are pretty damning.

[skully]

“...E-mails have been uncovered by NBC.”

Given NBC’s ‘editing’ issues as of late; I'd check to make sure they didn't write these e-mails themselves.

Is this being reported by any other source??

If this is true; this makes an already tragic case worse.

[MD Expat in PA]

ETA. The last part of my post didn’t make it.

A whole lot of people let these kids down even when some of the families of Second Mile kids tried to report it to the authorities and were dismissed because Sandusky was such a great guy, well connected and well respected in the community.

[Scoutmaster]

It is interesting that even in court McQueary’s testimony was uncertain and they could never decide who he told and what he told them.

The discrepancies regarding what McQueary said to which party have been overstated.

For example, you'll read that when Jonathan Dranov, M.D. testified for the defense, he testified that Mike McQueary told him that he didn't see any sexual act that night. That's not true.

Dranov said that each of the three times he asked McQueary if he actually saw sex, McQueary broke down and couldn't talk. McQueary was so upset, he couldn't get past the point where he described hearing the rhythmic slapping sound before he would break down and couldn't talk. Dranov, a long-time family friend, said he'd never seen McQueary break down before.

That testimony was far from "McQueary told Dranov he didn't see any sex act,' as presented by some.

[AAABEST]

I had been a Paterno defender before but depending on how this actually shakes out, he may be guilty. I really have no idea at this point.

"No idea" huh. Really?

Paterno himself says he knew that his wingman was screwing little boys. These emails are documentary evidence of more of the same. Yet you have "no idea." What do you need to get an idea, a video tape of Sandusky in the act with Paterno watching?

I'm not dogging on you man, I'm really not, but this is one of the major problems with America today. People have vast amount of evidence right before their eyes of the devolution, debauchery and complete desolation of what's good, yet either shut it out somehow or for whatever can't makee a logical determination that it's wrong.

At least you're not like some of the insufferable sports-moron personality-cultists who actually have the nerve to defend this miserable, pathetic(thankfully DEAD) douchebag in public.

[MD Expat in PA]

Now, these e-mails don’t really give us much information. There is a lot of speculation as to who the word “we” refers to, what Paterno said, and what all the people knew about 1998. We don’t know. We could ask Curley, but as far as Paterno’s legacy that doesn’t matter. He’s dead and his legacy is of no legal consequence.

But if these email exchanges are true, it could prove that Paterno’s testimony to the grand jury was false, a complete lie and that he was indeed involved in a cover up after the fact, after his initial report.

While Patnerno is dead and can’t be prosecuted for it, if true, it could have serious legal consequences for Curley and Spanier. If they admitted in their email exchanges that they knew that a crime was committed and they had initially admitted they had an obligation to report it to the proper authorities, and then changed their minds based on a conversation with Paterno, that convinced them to treat Sandusky “humanely” and that it should not be reported for whatever reason, and that they furthermore discussed the potential legal fallout of not reporting it should it ever become public, it would seem they weighed that bad outcome against the bad outcome of the bad publicity and deemed it was the lesser of those risk of not reporting it and keeping it “quiet”.

It would be really nice to have the whole story.

Yes it would. And I think when the whole story comes out, Sandusy is not the only one to face criminal charges.

[uncbob]

Thanks for the reply
Very well presented

[Oztrich Boy]

Sandusky may be the designated scapegoat for all those who committed the abuse, but he couldnt have continued as long as he did without the facillitation JoePa gave him.

[Joe 6-pack]

"Centre County President Judge Thomas Kistler, who joined the bench in 1997...said he saw "legitimate questions" about the decision to keep Long's son in the Sandusky home, but "I can't shed any light on them." Speaking generally, he said nearly every birth parent objects when the state decides to remove a child from the home."

So, rather than examine each case on its individual merits, the judge defaults to generalities? Speaking generally, most people come to a stop at red lights, so applying the same logic, I would hope he's dismissed every ticket ever issued for running an intersection in his jurisdictioin.

[flintsilver7]

Paterno himself says he knew that his wingman was screwing little boys.

On the contrary, statements like this are the problem with America. There's no truth to it - neither the idea that he was Paterno's wingman nor that he said he was aware of what Sandusky was doing (and not "horsing around" but actually raping children).

[flintsilver7]

I have thought from the beginning that many people should be charged criminally - Spanier, Curley, and Schultz at a minimum. There’s also Corbett and Ray Gricar, whose mysterious disappearance certainly doesn’t make things any clearer. The University and perhaps the state are in this up to their eyeballs.

I do not know whether Paterno told Curley not to pursue anything. My initial reading of those e-mails was that Paterno wanted them to pursue notification and Curley was the one who changed his mind. Logically I have not been able to wrap my mind around the fact that Paterno would’ve simultaneously reported it to his superiors (no matter how incompetent or symbolic, still his superiors), set up contact with the witness (McQueary), and still try to cover it up. You’d have to believe that he changed his mind after the initial meeting, which is certainly possible. It just seems more likely that Curley, Spanier, and Schultz were the ones involved in this.

I think that a passing reference to Paterno in the e-mails doesn’t clear anything up regarding what role he played in the aftermath. I’d have to check back to what he said initially, but I remember it being reported that there were at least two meetings with Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, so this could have come after that.

[fatnotlazy]

“Really? Your comments peg you as 1) a Liberal and 2) a football fanatic.”

***

Wrong on both counts. I’m just not quick to vilify a man without hard evidence that produces a conviction in a court of law.

The man is dead. I don’t really know what happened and neither do you. You don’t condemn a man based on speculation. At least I don’t.

[HollyB]

They were at the time really too young to fully understand and most of them, coming from “bad” homes, they perhaps didn’t know what “normal” was.

So true.

[newzjunkey]

The difference is the SFC knows the difference between pedophilia and adults' sexuality.

I don't see the condemnation of heterosexuals when a man has been abusing young girls--stories that rarely if ever get attention here--nor do I see much beyond the perverted "attaboy" when a woman has been abusing boys (unless she's deemed "ugly").

Picking and choosing the child abuse perversions that get a pass is heinous and despicable.

[Cyber Ninja]

poop shoot ethics

[vette6387]

Speculation? Sure, we need to try all those slimy bastards from the PSU Admin, but don’t you read? It’s like saying that Holder is being treated unfairly because of his skin color.To my mind, there is sufficient known facts surrounding what good old Joe Pa did or more correctly didn’t do) to decide that he acted with the “protection of his football program” as the paramount objective.

[massgopguy]

Met one of the great Penn State RB’s of the 1980’s in NYC in 1984. As a huge fan of college football I was praising JoePa. he said “he’s not the guy you think he is.” I wonder what he meant?

[Scoutmaster]

the fact that Paterno would’ve simultaneously reported it to his superiors

but I remember it being reported that there were at least two meetings with Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, so this could have come after that.

Then Paterno perjured himself in his grand jury testimony.

First, he said that he spoke with Curley, and only Curley, that one time at his house. He said he didn't know whether his report to Curley went to anyone else at Penn State.

Part of Paterno's testimony:

Q: You indicated that your report was made directly to Tim Curley. Do you know of that report being made to anyone else that was a university official?

Mr. Paterno: No, because I figured that Tim would handle it appropriately.

Schultz testified that he met with Paterno, so either Schultz or Paterno perjured himself.

Plus, you have to believe that when Curley came back to Paterno to discuss the proposed three-point resolution, Curley didn't tell Paterno that Schultz and Spanier were in the loop. Otherwise, Paterno perjured himself when he said that he didn't know of any other university officials that knew of Paterno's report about Sandusky.

We know from emails and grand jury testimony that Schultz and Curley knew about the 1998 investigation. We know from the review of Paterno's schedule in the Paterno Library on the PSU campus that in 1998, Paterno's only cancellations of any events during the entire year started by cutting short a fundraising trip two days after the police first listened in on Sandusky (but before the police notified Sandusky), and continued with canceling a family vacation and every other appointment until Gricar announced that Sandusky would not be prosecuted. Then, Paterno went back to his scheduled fundraising and recruiting events and didn't miss another one the rest of the year.

We've been told that Sandusky was then told by Paterno that Sandusky would not follow Paterno as head coach.

Given that Curley and Schultz knew about the 1998 incident, Paterno's scheduling changes during that 1998 investigation, and Paterno's telling Sandusky he would not succeed him, I find it difficult to believe Paterno didn't know about the 1998 incident in 1998.