Posted on 11/08/2011 11:13:49 PM PST by Colofornian
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A former Penn State assistant football coach accused of sexually abusing boys operated a series of youth sports camps at a satellite campus for six years after he was prohibited from taking youths onto the school's main campus by the athletics director and the senior vice president, who have been charged with failing to tell police about him.
The ban against Jerry Sandusky was imposed in 2002, the year a graduate student claimed to see him assault a child in a locker room shower. But Sandusky held summer football camps through his Sandusky Associates company at the satellite campus just outside Erie from 2000 to 2008, Penn State Behrend spokesman Bill Gonda said.
SNIP
A school spokeswoman said Penn State Erie and Penn State Harrisburg provided facilities for Sandusky to run a summer football camp under his own name...
SNIP
Sandusky operated football camps not only at the Behrend campus but also at Penn State Capital College in Middletown, Robert Morris University and Muhlenberg College, among others...
The camp was aimed at students from fourth grade through high school and offered personal attention and coaching from Sandusky, who retired from Penn State in 1999 after learning that he would not be head coach Joe Paterno's successor.
Sandusky has been aware of the accusations against him for about three years...
...the senior vice president, Gary Schultz, surrendered to authorities on Monday...
SNIP
...Schultz's lawyer said the men did what they were supposed to do by informing their superiors of the accusations against Sandusky.
The state police commissioner said Paterno fulfilled his legal requirement when he relayed to university administrators that the graduate assistant claimed to have seen Sandusky attacking a boy in the shower, but the commissioner questioned whether Paterno had a moral responsibility to do more...
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
For starters, if Pennsylvania families think Sandusky only had access to kids in State College, think again!
The AP article reveals that whatever information Penn State had in 2002 about Sandusky, it only applied it to a ban on him bringing boys onto the main campus.
It implies that they didn't care that Sandusky was initiating and reinforcing contacts with kids as young as the fourth grade at summer camps at Penn State Erie (Penn State Behrend), Penn State Harrisburg, and Penn State Capital College in Middletown -- as well as several other university campuses.
IOW, whatever knowledge Penn State administrators and coaches had in 2002, they didn't care if legal liability was spread to these other campuses. Plus, of even greater importance was that kids-at-risk was extended to campus locations all over the state!
At this point I would agree that it seems that Paterno was not criminally liable for any charge. But note this interesting "chainlink" of this article:
Paterno shouldn't be held accountable job-wise because he passed on the 2002 info to his superiors. And one of the superiors Paterno passed it onto in '02 was VP Gary Schultz, whose attorney now claims that "...the men did what they were supposed to do by informing their superiors of the accusations against Sandusky."
If that was true, then the buck was passed again to whom? Perhaps the PSU president (Spanier)???
But if the PSU president was informed by the VP and AD, we'll probably eventually hear from him that he did what he was supposed to do by informing the Penn State trustees of the accusations against Sandusky.
And if that is eventually announced, who will the trustees say they informed?
Oh, and don't forget that this whole "chain" was started when graduate assistant Michael McQueary elected to not inform authorities of the crime he saw -- and told his superior, Joe Paterno.
I guess my question would be then, after all the buck-stops-here chain ends...who gave McQueary, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and perhaps even the Board of Trustees the authority to investigate criminal charges themselves to render a conclusion?
Last I knew that belonged to the local police department's jurisdiction.
And each time the buck was passed, did not ANY of these men EVER follow up to find out why Sandusky was...
(a) not arrested?
and (b) "Gee, I wonder if we have any moral culpability or job accountability for not hinting to the police -- or otherwise commenting upon Sandusky -- all as he runs amok throughout the state running these sports camps with his 'personal attention' theme?"
Guess not.
They've all "flunked out" of Basic Humanitarian Ethics 101.
The way this has gone, it seems that Sandusky had confidence that he was protected by the Athletic Department and by the Football Program. Why would they protect Sandusky? A possible explanation is that another pederast got high up into the Department, and partook in Sandusky’s finds. If Sandusky went down, the confederate knew he would go down as well.
Who else in the Athletic Department participated in the monstrous Second Mile organization?
This article reveals the Penn State Behrend campus athletic director with a twisted stomach, hoping Sandusky didn't abuse any children at the camps on that campus.
As it becomes revealed that Sandusky ran camps all over the state, this sour stomach knot is going to move from A.D. to A.D. and from parent to parent all over Pennsylvania...officials and parents who begin to realize that Sandusky may have been running their kids' football camps with "personal attention."
What? Nobody at Penn State knew Sandusky was running these camps all over the state from 2002-2008? Really?
I looked at the Second Mile website, and it appears quite respectable. I was wrong to call it monstrous above. It was Sandusky that was monstrous. He may have had, however, pederast confederates within Second Mile.
It still doesn't excuse not going with the graduate to the police when administrators didn't do anything about it. We all have times in our lives when we are challenged by situations that are disturbing and upsetting. That is when our true nature comes out. Not too impressed by Paterno.
... the athletics director and the senior vice president, who have been charged with failing to tell police about him.
Nope. That is not even remotely what they have been charged with.
Under PA Law, the failure to report this crime is a misdemeanor. It is pretty clear under the statute that the only people who can really be charged with failing to comply are McQueary and President Spanier. McQueary, because he had a responsibility to report the crime directly to Spanier or to the police, and Spanier, because under the statute he was the authority of last resort and was obligated to report to the police. The trustees are not in any way involved.
Now: Schultz and Curley are guilty of felony perjury, because in covering up the crime of not reporting the original event, they lied to a Grand Jury.
I want to ask you to seriously examine your own motives and ask why you think Paterno might have a problem here if you will: Paterno's testimony is that McQueary DID NOT inform him of a homosexual rape. Evidently, the Grand Jury found that testimony credible, because unlike the AD and VP, he was not charged with making any false statements. Given that, someone comes to you with an accusation of improper sexual contact of some kind with a minor, and this is second hand. You tell him to report it, and he does.
If you're going to post things about this, how about actually reading the public presentment of the indictment at the PA Attorney General's web site? It's only twenty three pages long, and like most legal documents is double spaced. It takes about twenty minutes.
You can also take a look at the timeline given at the FoxSports web site. They actually have the whole thing laid out quite well, unlike the SI and ESPN websites which are full of nonsense, opinion, false statements, chronological inaccuracies and rumors.
The real problem here is not PSU, it's The Second Mile. They were told about this on several occasions, and not just by PSU, and they continued to promote these events in which Sandusky was put in contact with kids.
Why do you assume I haven't?
Crystal ball? Magic 8-ball on hand?
As a matter of fact, several hours ago at this thread -- Front-page editorial calls for PSU prez to resign [And Paterno resignation called for as well] [post #39] -- I posted the presentment link and quoted from p. 7:
"...the graduate assistant telephoned Paterno and went to Paterno's home, where he reported what he had seen. Joseph V. Paterno testified to receiving the graduate assistant's report at his home on a Saturday morning. Paterno testified that the graduate assistant was very upset. Paterno called Tim Curley (‘Curley’), Penn State Athletic Director and Paterno's immediate supervisor, to his home the very next day, a Sunday, and reported to him that the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy." (p. 7)
Now did you catch that last phrase: "or doing SOMETHING of a SEXUAL NATURE TO a young boy"???
You, Fred, said: ...ask why you think Paterno might have a problem here if you will: Paterno's testimony is that McQueary DID NOT inform him of a homosexual rape... Given that, someone comes to you with an accusation of improper sexual contact of some kind with a minor...
Q #1: Since when does "DOING SOMETHING OF A SEXUAL NATURE" -- what Paterno reported to Curley & Schultz -- automatically exclude homosexual rape...as you indicate above?
Could the answer be, "Only when a certain subjective poster wants it to be excluded for no obvious reason?"
Q #2: Why would various kinds of sexual penetration/contact with a minor even matter to you, or to Paterno? What "defense" are you according Paterno with such assenine distinctions? Pedophile sexual abuse is pedophile sexual abuse!
The real problem here is not PSU, it's The Second Mile. They were told about this on several occasions, and not just by PSU, and they continued to promote these events in which Sandusky was put in contact with kids.
How do you know this? If this is true, isn't this a kind of "inside info?"
Pray tell, tell us, Fred: How is it that the Second Mile had all of this "intel" at some point about Sandusky -- apparently supplied via Penn State somebodies...but Joe didn't know? Other Penn State coaches/officials weren't in the know? What about the Penn State A.D.s @ Behrend, Harrisburg, Capital? Why weren't they in the know if the Second Mile was?
Tell us, how is it that Penn State COACHES and its admin would know about Sandusky's camps all over the state from '02 to '08 -- and they according to you were eager to relay the info to the Second Mile -- but how is it that the authorities couldn't even get a peep, a whisper til about latter '08 or so?
Besides, your other problem here is that Sandusky didn't have all of his access to kids via the Second Mile Foundation. He also ran camps via Sandusky Associates -- his personal organization. What? Are you saying somebody should have told Sandusky about Sandusky so that Sandusky Associates would have stopped doing sports camps?
How utterly ridiculous are your claims!!!
Given that, someone comes to you with an accusation of improper sexual contact of some kind with a minor, and this is second hand. You tell him to report it, and he does.
Wow! You know all you have to do is to read the Grand Jury Presentment. It's only 23 pages long. And then you wouldn't have skipped an important step in the retelling here.
Paterno didn't just tell McQueary "to report it," and then wash his hands of it. No! Paterno FIRST invited Curley & Schultz over to his house to discuss all of this BEFORE McQueary met with them.
IOW, Paterno puts credibility behind the weight of this report by sharing it FIRST with his superiors.
Why does this distinction matter?
#1 Because the way you tell it, it implies JoePa hears a report, isn't sure if it's credible or not, tells the person reporting to pass it on, and he's washed his hands of it. NOPE! Read the report, Fred! Paterno weighs in on the reliability of this report by sharing it himself!
#2 Once a coach believes he has heard a very credible report, there's a certain thing that kicks in called long-term "responsibility." IOW, even after JoePa "did his duty" and passed it on to his superiors, he wasn't "done" there.
For the short run, yes. The long run? No!
JoePa, after finding out that Sandusky had never been arrested (perhaps many months/a year later) should have checked with McQueary to see if the authorities had ever interviewed him. At some point upon realizing that his superiors had flunked Basic Humanitarian Ethics 101, McQueary and Paterno both should have had an alarm kick in...ESPECIALLY knowing that Sandusky was continuing to have access to all these kids via The Second Mile and Sandusky Associates.
Or do you now claim that JoePa was so senile from, say, 2003 to 2008 that he didn't know Sandusky was running all of these camps and still had Second Mile connections with kids? Or you're not going to tell us, are you, that the "god" of State College had no "sphere of influence" to weigh in beyond his initial report on what he heard as a very credible eyewitness report re: Sandusky?
why didn’t the person who witnessed the assault on the child report it to the police? It did not have to be passed up the chain of command.
That is a good question. Also Joe Pa should have checked to see if the police were involved and made sure the scum Sandusky wasn't allowed anywhere near the University.
From all accounts Joe Pa did neither and that is why I say charge him too. Charge anybody in authority who looked the other way.
Penn State Middletown = Penn State Harrisburg, just as
Penn State Behrend = Penn State Erie.
Did Paterno know about the 1998 incident? I think that is the key question so far as determining how to judge Paterno. I'm not saying Paterno comes off looking good otherwise, but if he knew about the 1998 incident then obviously it casts him in an especially bad light regarding his response in 2002, where there is no excuse for him not alerting the police immediately and telling them "what more do you guys need to get this monster off the streets and keep him away from boys"?
But if we are to believe Paterno and he didn't know what happened in 1998, then the question is why did Sandusky just happen to "retire" following the 1998 season? Coincidence? Or was it part of a deal? And a deal with whom? The district attorney? But then why have him retire from PSU and not Second Mile? To me it makes more sense if someone at PSU knew what happened and wanted to distance him from the program (though obviously they didn't distance him far enough!).
In regards to McQueary, i would like to know if he was sober that night in 2002, for otherwise his actions don't make much sense to me. If he wasn't sober though, it could explain things a little better. For example, he may not have been physically/mentally able to come to the rescue of the boy. Also he may not have wanted to call the cops, since they would then see he was either drunk or on drugs and therefore would not only question his reliability as a witness but might even arrest him if he had been doing drugs and still had them in his system (or at least he might worry about that possibility).
He did call his father though, and perhaps this too would explain the response of the father for he could tell his son wasn't sober and therefore may have had some doubts about what his son said he saw, but not enough to advise him to just drop the matter. Enough though to tell him to sleep on it for a night and then go see Paterno (but not the cops, for the cops would ask why didn't you call us right away) if he was still at least fairly certain about what he had seen.
And then in the following years, up until the grand jury was convened, the younger McQueary may not have pursued the matter further for he couldn't be absolutely sure he had seen what he thought he had. There's even a good chance he would want to convince himself that this was the case. However, with the grand jury indictment he then knew for certain and could confidently give his account.
I feel it necessary to retract from my previous post the part about McQueary perhaps not being sober, for i have just read elsewhere that “[he] and his father grew up together with Sandusky and his son. They participated in little league together and were close.” That then goes a long way to explaining the actions of both father and son and how extremely difficult (in a nightmarishly surreal way) the situation must have been for them.
Thanks for the clarification
The problem I have even with this is that it's like a person who has water pollution coming thru the pipes of his home; turns off the faucet; and buys bottled water from then on.
He doesn't inform his neighbors getting water from the same source. It's essentially a "screw them" Scrooge approach.
As this article shows, Sandusky ran camps all over PA thru '08...six years of camps with 4th graders on up where all of these coaches & admins knew the access he had to kids...yet their conscience never was strong enough to prompt ANY of them to tip off the police???
How many dozens of more kids may have been abused OUTSIDE of State College -- some from contact Sandusky had at Penn State satellite campuses?
Because your posts are full of nonsense that either isn't in, or contradicts what is in the presentment. If what you're saying is that you've actually read it, but that you have terrible reading comprehension, and/or are deliberately misstating things, I accept your explanation.
But as I made plain, I know that you're a hater, so I don't expect you to listen to me, and I pointed you to the presentment of the indictment -- not in the least for your benefit -- but for the same reason I'm replying to you now: for the benefit of sentient beings, who don't make their putative "minds" up on the basis of their hatred or envy of Joe Paterno or PSU.
Q #1: Since when does "DOING SOMETHING OF A SEXUAL NATURE" -- what Paterno reported to Curley & Schultz -- automatically exclude homosexual rape...as you indicate above?
Since, always.
In logical syllogism, it's certainly included. But in practice, when one sees a rape, he describes it as rape, and not as "something of a sexual nature."
[I believe it is VERY DOUBTFUL, despite his testimony to the Grand Jury, that McQueary EVER described what he saw as a rape to Paterno, his Dad, Schultz, Curley or anyone else, because if he had, the next immediate question anyone would ask is the obvious one: You saw the rape of a child in progress and DID NOTHING? It was only by presenting a very pusillanimous account to his superiors that he saved himself the shame he deserved. And that is why their response was so limited. "I may have seen something in the shower."]
Q #2: Why would various kinds of sexual penetration/contact with a minor even matter to you, or to Paterno? What "defense" are you according Paterno with such assenine distinctions? Pedophile sexual abuse is pedophile sexual abuse!
Penetration would be rape, and if you think there is no distinction in morality (and law) between contact, fondling, and rape, which are increasingly immoral and vile, you're either a moral child, or an uncivilized person, or -- as I believe all your postings demonstrate -- a raving madman, blind with hatred.
But, I'll spell it out as I would for a child (which is the most charitable, though least likely, assumption): A new assistant comes to you and says he saw something improper in the shower. He is the only person who has seen it, and he has not described it as a rape. Other than establishing a contemporaneous context to his testimony, your standing is nothing more than as a hearsay witness. Now what? The actual witness needs to report this. Not me (I knew nothing about it.) Not Paterno. He told McQueary he would have to report what he saw. Should he have done more? Legally he was not obligated to. Morally he was, provided he was informed that something serious actually happened. I don't believe he was.
Pray tell, tell us, Fred: How is it that the Second Mile had all of this "intel" at some point about Sandusky -- apparently supplied via Penn State somebodies...but Joe didn't know?
It was not supplied by "Penn State somebodies." It was supplied by the Centre County DA after the 1998 investigation. It was supplied by a local high school, and yes, in the 2002 incident it was supplied by Penn State.
The Second Mile had far more information about who Sandusky had taken home, how frequently, what their ages and genders were, and how he had conducted himself with the children in their program than PSU did. But strangely, all of your bile is reserved for PSU in general, and Joe Paterno in particular, while you defend TSM.
Bizarre.
And with respect to TSM/Sandusky's activities at PSU facilities, if you think the head coach at a major program knew or cared in the least about sports camps being put on by The Second Mile or any other charity -- especially at small campuses 200 miles away -- you need to learn a lot more about intercollegiate athletics before you comment any further.
[At this point in the narrative, The Coliform holds forth with many exclamation points!!! and even more inane piffle and convulsive raving that is nothing more than a tedious repetition of points already poorly and in some cases falsely articulated.]
[No reply necessary.]
A temporary help janitor witnessed a similar incident in Rec Hall (a PSU student facility with no connection to the football program) in 2000. He told his supervisor, who told him whom to report it to. The janitor left employment without reporting it, and died shortly thereafter. His superior, who got a second-hand account similar to Paterno's involvement never followed up. Must he resign? Must everyone all the way up the food chain at the PSU Department of Physical Plant now resign or be fired? Shall we pray that the dead janitor spend another 10,000 centuries in Purgatory, or just rot in hell forever? Or do your rabid resentments -- whatever their causes might be -- only extend to the Penn State football team?
Or do you now claim that JoePa was so senile ...
This gratuitous, disgusting bit of vituperation says all anyone needs to know about you -- and confirms what I've said all along. You need to find a couch somewhere to pay a calm-voiced doctor to explore your issues, but please keep your ugliness off of FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.