Comments on: Paterno and the duty to report

By: Wolla Dalbo

Wolla Dalbo — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 14:57:14 +0000

Rigel Dog–I believe that Paterno regrets only that he got caught. Notice, for instance, his statement of a few says ago that he and his wife would “start” praying for the victims.

To me this says that until it was a convenient, very public way to demonstrate his sorrow at what happened–something he thought it would be “good press” to say, he never gave these kids a second thought, they were banished from his mind, buried, but now disinterred to try to save his reputation and, perhaps, keep him out of the dock.

By: Rigel Dog

Rigel Dog — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:49:49 +0000

Penn State alum here and also former prosecutor in Centre County. I am inclined to believe Paterno that he was not told the full extent of what the grad assistant witnessed. The eyewitness did not intervene and did not call the police. He went to his father that night, and they went to Paterno early the next day. It seems believable that someone who was so indecisive and in denial at that time would also be vague in his report to Paterno.
Paterno reported not only to the athletic director, who had the authority to change Sandusky’s access to facilities, but also to the vice-president, who had authority over the campus police.
By the time that the grad assistant was questioned by those authorities, it was an official investigation as far as he was concerned and so he told the full story. They are the ones who are most culpable for suppressing this horrible crime.
I wish the grad assitant and JoePa had done more, immediately. Paterno said that he terribly regrets not doing more, and I believe that too.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 09:12:49 +0000

While McQueary’s behavior was cowardly and inexcusable, I don’t believe the focus should be on him as much because what he witnessed was far from the first known incident. It is likely that this was going on for years and that a *lot* of people knew about it – that is why Sandusky “retired” prematurely in 1999. Ultimately the blame for letting this go on so long belongs to the school administration and especilly Paterno. Sandusky reportedly was using school facilities *THIS YEAR* for crying out loud.

By: HEP-T

HEP-T — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:28:09 +0000

Perhaps….Paterno was a pedophile also, these perverts run in packs. The whole atheletic department could very well have been anal/orally raping children for years each covering for the others.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 17:43:28 +0000

Mrs Whatsit: shock was an explanation, not an excuse.

But it’s different from that China situation you mentioned, because McQueary was the only witness. I put the highest responsibility on McQueary, therefore, to report to the proper authorities, even though he was lower down on the hierarchy than Paterno. Only McQueary knew the absolute truth of what he saw with his own eyes; the rest could more effectively use denial.

Which, by the way, is also just an explanation I’m offering, not an excuse, for Paterno and the rest and their failure to do enough. And if McQueary’s explanation to Paterno of exactly and precisely what he saw was too vague for Paterno to understand, Paterno should have queried him more and gotten the full story, even if Paterno was embarrassed and upset to hear it.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:57:50 +0000

clarification: The military is more reluctant to use up its human material than are Division 1 programs. Combat is necessary and casualties are inevitable and the first goal is the mission and then the troops. But commanders are gradedin part on how few casualties their troops suffer. If you get a bunch of guys killed doing something that looks as if it could have been done better or doing something that looks as if it needn’t have been done at all, you have a problem in your efficiency report, presuming you aren’t relieved on the spot. Coaches….

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:53:38 +0000

Paterno’s moral and ethical obligation was to get back involved if, in a short time, it was clear there was no investigation. And not to be passive. To be active in determining if there was an investigation.
Sandusky had baggage and should have been watched. Places which don’t watch people with baggage sometimes get sued because “they had to have known”. Insurance guy told me that a “beware of dog” sign means you know the dog is bad and that increases liability if the dog bites. Sort of an analogy. Should have known or couldn’t not have known.
When I played lax, I had an injury and went to the school’s jock doc. Told me I could play when I could climb stairs. I could, but with some pain. So you’re okay, then, he said. Nuts to him. I didn’t have a scholarship.
Ran into a guy played football for the same school twenty years before I was there, dealt with the same jock doc. All messed up orthopedically, stemming, his orthopedic guy said, from being made to play with novocain instead of taken out of the game. The military is less shy about using up their human material than big school programs. So the question, program vs. kid?, kid vs. program? isn’t going to be viewed as if it were you.
I’ve heard of, not seen, studies where combat sport jocks and soldiers, or the alumni of such, are far more likely to respond usefully in an emergency even of the kind for which they are not trained. So to suggest McQ was paralyzed by shock might be true, but less likely to be so than for a non-jock/soldier.

By: Mrs Whatsit

Mrs Whatsit — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:02:56 +0000

Neo, I agree that shock could explain that grad student’s initial failure to intervene to help that child — but it doesn’t excuse it. If what the grad student saw was as damning as I have heard, then the only acceptable response is the one tnxplant described.

This is reminding me painfully of the incident in China I commented about in a thread a few weeks ago (I’m sorry, I can’t remember which one.) This was the situation in which a two-year-old was run over by a truck and then ignored by some 15 or 20 passersby and run over again before someone finally helped. At the time, I thought such a thing couldn’t happen here. Well, guess what.

By: expat

expat — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:15:27 +0000

I can’t help thinking about Kevin Jenkins and NAMBLA as I read about this. On one hand you have hypocritical perverts and their enablers and on the other, perverts who openly campaign for their “rights.” How screwed up are we?

By: Beverly

Beverly — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 07:49:06 +0000

And re Scott’s point: the “Second Mile” charity that Sandusky was involved with was to help underprivileged boys who didn’t have a father, or much of anyone else, to give a damn about them or protect them.

That he would prey on those defenseless little ones: ranging from age 7 to 13, for God’s sake — is all the more horrifying. But they would be perfect prey for such a monster.

And yes, Paterno did know about the 1998 investigation of his then-subordinate. He had to know.

Thing is, they all (except for the luckless graduate student, who was the only one who kept telling the truth) knew about the nature of this creep and covered for him, to cover the university’s butt. Stacked against the alma mater, the little boys who were raped didn’t matter a damn to them.

I would say further, that only someone living under a rock thinks that a pedophile, particularly one as old as this guy, is satisfied with one encounter. They had to have known that this was extremely likely to have occurred before.

Their response? simply to make sure that he didn’t do it again in the university locker room. Presumably he was free to prey on children elsewhere, as far as they were concerned.

Lastly, I don’t buy that Paterno had little or no contact with/awareness of this guy: he had been in the running to succeed the old man. You feel me? A protege, known to have been investigated in 1998, and now again in 2002, and no lights went on?

And there’s word on the street that a LOT more victims are out there, still to be heard from.