If you were to follow the entire Sandusky timeline, you would find that he was accused of similar sexual child abuse in the past, and was cleared of all charges. Although Joe Paterno did get him fired, the Penn State administration still allowed him “special” access to the sports facilities.
Run the timeline ahead several years and Joe gets a second hand report of Sandusky child sexual abuse from a student aide. He reports it to his superiors, and they sit on it. People (some here) decry his not going directly to the police, but what would they do, he was not a witness, and they had already been through all of this before – with Sandusky getting off. You must realize that during this time period, homosexuals were an uber protected class in State College – they could do no wrong.
If anyone is to blame for all of this it is the university administration who not only accepted the homosexual lifestyle with open arms, they promoted it with university (i.e. taxpayer and student fee) supported homosexual fairs. With all of this homosexual pressure placed on you, what would you do differently?????
If anyone is to blame for all of this it is the university administration who not only accepted the homosexual lifestyle with open arms, they promoted it with university (i.e. taxpayer and student fee) supported homosexual fairs. With all of this homosexual pressure placed on you, what would you do differently?????
Paterno may have thought he was in a tight-spot just as you describe it. The LGBT students at PSU had run the Lady Lions head basketball coach out of town a while back. Paterno was also keenly aware that Spanier and a minority of the Trustees wanted him to retire as far back as 2 previous contract negotiations. Spanier very much brought the alternative lifestyles to the fore at PSU. I could easily imagine Spanier using this homosexual community against Paterno -- unless Paterno was willing to splash some headlines and go out in a blaze of glory.
Even so, I can't excuse Paterno. And it should be noted that I don't know any of this for a fact. Just speculation on my part having gone to school there.
Absolutely false.
Joe Paterno did get him fired
Absolutely false.
I wouldn't say he was 'cleared of all charges.'
First, I think you need to understand the 1998 charges and some reasons why the assistant district attorney decided to drop charges at the time (which isn't the same as being 'cleared of all charges')>
Second, you may not be aware of all that's been uncovered since November 2011 of Penn State's roll in making certain Jerry Sandusky wasn't charged in 1998.
First, the 1998 charges involved showering - simply showering - with two boys. One boy (later known as Victim 6) came home from an outing with Sandusky with wet hair and admitted he had showered with Sandusky. Sandusky bear hugged the boy and gave him a shampoo. There was no touching of genitals, no oral sex, no anal sex, no manual sexual contact. Police located a second boy who had experienced the same (but prosecutors couldn't located him again for the recent trial).
From the beginning, that makes 1998 different. The only way to successfully prosecute Sandusky was to prove that he showered with the boy for his (Sandusky's) sexual gratification, because there were no overt sexual acts.
Considering Sandusky was the acting defensive coordinator for Penn State (and had been for 20 years) and had been a Penn State coach for 30 years, and the case had to be tried before a Happy Valley jury, the assistant district attorney knew she was facing a difficult task. We've seen how Happy Valley views Penn State football and coaches. Imagine trying to convict the Hero of The Second Mile and an acting Penn State defensive coordinator for . . . showering with a boy. Especially when, according to the testimony of two Penn State coaches during Sandusky's trial, other coaches considered showering with children to be 'normal.'
A representative of child welfare services was involved in the decision not to prosecute Jerry Sandusky after reading one psychological report on him. The assistant district attorney made a decision that she couldn't win her case in front of a Happy Valley Jury, not that Sandusky was "cleared of all charges."
However, since 1998 - and specifically since November 2011 - we've discovered that after the Penn State police and the State College police FIRST listened in on the call between Jerry Sandusky and the victim's mother, and BEFORE the second time the police listened into the SECOND call between Jerry Sandusky and the mother, Joe Paterno, Gary Schultz, and Tim Curley were notified of the investigation. The Freeh report details emails between them (and yes, Paterno used email) discussing the investigation. We now know that the Esquire article detailing how Paterno cut short a fund-raising trip immediately after the 1998 investigation began, then canceled a family vacation, and canceled all other trips until after it was determined that Sandusky would not be charged, appears almost certainly tied to his involvement in the investigation.
What impact did Penn State have on the investigation?
First, Penn State police had two - two - psychological reports on Jerry Sandusky. One said that he had tendencies as a pedophile. That report was not turned over to Pennsylvania child welfare or the assistant district attorney. It's reasonable to assume that Paterno, Schulz, and Curley had a hand in making certain that report was not turned over.
Second, there was a telling statement made by the nephew of Ray Gricar, the district attorney overseeing the 1998 case. When Gricar was officially declared dead because he had been missing for seven years, Gricar's nephew said Gricar had always had a sour taste in his mouth because he felt that Penn State football had stonewalled the 1998 investigation into Sandusky.
So, no, I don't think showering is 'similar sexual abuse' to anal rape. I don't think Sandusky was cleared of charges in 1998. Finally, I think we've found out a lot - particularly Penn State's withholding of the report on Sandusky indicating that he had tendencies as a pedophile - that helps explain the decision not to prosecute in 1998.