Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Survivors of sexual abuse appalled by Penn State unrest
CNN ^ | 11 Nov 2011 | Madison Park

Posted on 11/11/2011 6:47:52 PM PST by Hoodat

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-271 next last
To: flintsilver7; vette6387; NewinTexsas
You are suggesting that there is a vast conspiracy coming out of Penn State to protect a monster

No matter how intentional or unintentional things were in both 1998 and 2002, the fact is it at the very least eventually evolved into a conspiracy...a conspiracy of silence...a "conspiracy of cowards."

["Jay Bilas, the ESPN college basketball commentator, called it 'a conspiracy of cowards.'" Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves]

If you haven't looked at FREEPER NewinTexsas' list of who had prior knowledge of what Sandusky was up to...please review...I'm sure he might repost it on this thread.

151 posted on 11/12/2011 2:26:53 AM PST by Colofornian (The Perv State KNitKinsey Lionizers: The campus which most now love to loathe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

The behavior reported by those who failed to take action simply manifests corruption in their souls.

Their perspective is not toward righteousness, but from a perspective of anticipating justice. When they fail to act in the face of such overwhelming criminality, it is because they are attempting to do right in their own eyes from the perspective of a corrupt soul independent of God.

Even if they have no faith in what God provides, the laws for believer and unbeliever alike, established by legitimate authority, will still keep the criminally minded under control for the society.


152 posted on 11/12/2011 2:32:01 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Here’s a couple of good pieces by experts on the Duke Lacrosse Frame.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2011/11/the_penn_state_trustees_react_.html

November 10, 2011

The Penn State Trustees React to the Stench

Posted by KC Johnson

The Board of Trustees acted properly in cleaning house at Penn State, by firing president Graham Spanier and longtime football coach Joe Paterno. The inaction of the duo, along with similar conduct from now-suspended Athletic Director Tim Curley and now-retired VP Gary Schultz has exposed the university to potentially massive legal liability, as well as prompting an extraordinary public relations backlash.

From all available evidence, the quartet undertook what turned out to be a disastrous gamble: that they could handle the allegations about former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky in such a way that would neither risk the university’s financial well-being nor hurt Penn State’s public relations. So when they received word that Sandusky had been witnessed sexually assaulting a young boy, the four interpreted the allegations in the most benign way possible, and then swept things under the rug. By behaving as they did, they sought to protect the Penn State “brand” from the type of fallout we’ve witnessed over the past several days. Their actions were immoral, but not necessarily irrational.

Spanier, ironically, crossed the line from immoral to irrational in his only statement on the charges before his dismissal. He remarked,

“The allegations about a former coach are troubling, and it is appropriate that they be investigated thoroughly. Protecting children requires the utmost vigilance.”

“With regard to the other presentments, I wish to say that Tim Curley and Gary Schultz have my unconditional support. I have known and worked daily with Tim and Gary for more than 16 years. I have complete confidence in how they have handled the allegations about a former University employee.”

“Tim Curley and Gary Schultz operate at the highest levels of honesty, integrity and compassion. I am confident the record will show that these charges are groundless and that they conducted themselves professionally and appropriately.”

It’s hard to discern what Spanier hoped to accomplish from this statement. Not only did he decline to suspend Curley, as pointed out most passionately by Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, Spanier’s use of “unconditional support” implied that he would back the two administrators even if they were found guilty. Moreover, the former president was speaking definitively about issues of which he couldn’t possibly have the requisite knowledge at this time (what did a then-graduate assistant actually say to the two administrators when he reported Sandusky’s behavior; what precisely did the two administrators say to the grand jury). It’s entirely possible that the administrators ultimately will be found not guilty of perjury, a tough charge to prove; it’s even possible, on technical grounds, that they’ll be found not guilty of a failure to report. But for Spanier to have asserted that he knew the truth at this stage was anti-intellectual, and his statement alone would have raised grave doubts about his fitness to lead a major research university.

It’s worth wondering how this story might have played out differently had the de facto (Paterno) and de jure (Spanier) leaders of Penn State responded to the announcement of the charges in the way Penn State’s trustees did on Tuesday night—with a forceful condemnation of Sandusky’s alleged acts and a promise of a comprehensive investigation to find out what went wrong—and then again on Wednesday evening, with a remarkably composed and impressive press conference from BOT vice chairman John Surma.

Instead, Paterno less-than-credibly remarked that he was shocked about the charges, and Spanier offered his amateur legal analysis while downplaying the alleged crimes as merely “troubling.” Both statements created the impression that even after the charges were revealed, the leadership of Penn State lacked any understanding of the gravity of the situation.


Over the past few days, quite a few reporters and commentators have referenced the Duke lacrosse case in commenting on events at Penn State, if only as a reminder of the presumption of innocence and the dangers of a rush to judgment. To quote ESPN’s Dana O’Neill, “If the Duke lacrosse case has taught us anything, we don’t know what we don’t know.” And, as any longtime reader of Dorothy Rabinowitz’s Pulitzer Prize-winning work knows, it’s particularly important to demand evidence—rather than wild allegations—when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse against children.

But apart from the fact that the Penn State scandal doesn’t involve some of the other key lessons of the lacrosse case (flawed legal procedures beget flawed results; race/class/gender advocates who dominate most humanities departments care little about due process or impartially evaluating evidence if upholding these ideals might frustrate their on-campus aims), what we know of events at Penn State suggests a very different kind of case than at Duke.

The two most important differences:

First, unlike the Durham Police and disgraced ex-prosecutor Mike Nifong, the authorities in Pennsylvania actually investigated the charges, producing a detailed grand jury report. (Nifong and the DPD, on the other hand, simply accepted whatever story false accuser Crystal Mangum wanted to float to keep the story alive.) Moreover, in at least two instances, there were witnesses to Sandusky’s alleged acts. Again, no such witnesses ever existed in the lacrosse case. And so while it’s obviously premature to speak of guilt or innocence, the prosecution certainly can’t be faulted for a failure to conduct a thorough investigation, or for engaging in the type of horrific abuses of the legal system that Rabinowitz detailed in No Crueler Tyrannies.

Second, the charges against Curley and Schultz—and the possible charges against Spanier—don’t depend on whether Sandusky is guilty or innocent. Perhaps this is all a grand conspiracy against Sandusky, or a massive misunderstanding, and he’s actually innocent. Regardless of the coach’s guilt or innocence, however, the university officials had an obligation to report the charges to police; and, in the case of Curley and Schultz, to tell the truth to the grand jury.

The academy is notoriously accountability-challenged: Richard Brodhead, after all, is still running Duke. But, even in a profession that tends to circle the wagons rather than acknowledge outside criticism, Spanier had to go. That the trustees acted boldly and quickly represents about the first good decision made by the Penn State administration in this affair.


153 posted on 11/12/2011 2:41:23 AM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: MrEdd

The same authority in which Joe decided to place his faith controlling the situation in the past, is now the authority which cans him.

In neither case did either party decide to respond to inference of criminality by reporting it to legitimate authority and allowing law enforcement and the judicial system administer justice.

The irony.


154 posted on 11/12/2011 2:41:31 AM PST by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/higher_educations_transparency_problem.html

November 12, 2011
Higher Education’s Transparency Problem
By R.B. Parrish

Nobody knows at present exactly what happened at Penn State — but it would come as no surprise if a major university, when informed that it had the makings of a scandal affecting its campus, decided to cover the matter up rather than report everything directly and openly, and thereby subject itself to negative publicity.

Openness and transparency are not the ways great corporations — which is what a modern university is — do business.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the very first advice a dean gave to the lacrosse players — threatened with possible indictment on first-degree rape charges — was not to tell their parents. The next advice was not to get attorneys. (And the dean giving this advice was herself a member of the Bar.)

The primary goal was to keep the story out of the news. That would be best for Duke. (It was clearly not in the best interest of the players.) When the university learned the players had in fact gotten attorneys, its displeasure was palpable.

Thereafter, Duke did its utmost to wash its hands of its falsely accused students — the better to demonstrate that it had nothing to do with any possible racism, sexism, hubris, or privileged class status supposedly revealed by the case. The university president, Richard Brodhead, kept an antiseptic distance from the lacrosse players: he never communicated with them; he refused to look at evidence of their innocence; he turned down requests to meet with their parents. They became anathema to him — and it was important that they be publicly seen to be an anathema to Duke. Duke’s reputation before the community required it.

The chairman of Duke’s board of trustees, Robert K. Steel, told one of the boys’ defenders that it would be “best for Duke” if they were tried. “Best for Duke.” It wouldn’t matter if there were convictions, because “it could all be sorted out on appeal.” Blatantly innocent students (proven so by DNA tests two weeks before the first arrests in the case were made) should have to bear the burden of public opprobrium, a vindictive and (in Durham) biased trial, and possible conviction — all because it would be “best for Duke.” As Steel also allegedly said to fellow trustees, Duke was not defending its students because “sometimes people have to suffer for the good of the organization.”

That organization reserved all its animus for its own; it never had a bad word for Nifong, nor for the false accuser. In fact, it cooperated with the prosecutor, handing over private student information in violation of FERPA and then lying about it to the court, not to mention joining with Nifong to initiate a sham motion for the same information in order to make it appear as if Duke was actually following the law.

Contrast this with the response of Donna Shalala of the University of Miami when members of Miami’s football team were involved in a fracas:

[W]e will not throw any student under the bus for instant restoration of our image or our reputation. I will not hang them in a public square. I will not eliminate their participation at the University. I will not take away their scholarships.

It’s time for the feeding frenzy to stop. These students made a stupid, terrible, horrible mistake and they are being punished. They are students and we are an educational institution and we will act like an educational institution, not like a P.R. organization that’s trying to spin and to restore an image that we worked so hard to put in place. (Oct. 17, 2006)

A university can be in the kid business. Or it can be a corporation. The latter seeks to preserve at all costs its name, reputation, and business accounts; the vast sums it accrues from its sports programs; its millions in revenues. Its goal can be its own aggrandizement.

A university can even come to regard students as a necessary but transitory evil — basic to its continued existence, but not the essence of what the school itself is. That essence is made up of the faculty, who prime their own egos; the administration, which does the same; and the balance sheets, donation totals, and new buildings, all of which the university scrutinizes in the same way a CEO spies his profit sheets. Like a corporation, a university can come to believe it has to think only in terms of “the big picture.”

It can be willing — some would argue that it has to be willing — to discard a few insignificant individuals along the way as “collateral damage.” What corporation ever grew great except on the detritus of those it crushed while building its success?

How much was Penn State concerned that it might lose if there was a scandal? Was anyone afraid of being fired if they spoke up? Was anyone afraid of retaliation if they reported something? (Who wants to be the whistle-blower against a great corporate entity?) What was uppermost in the thoughts of those who may have known about the scandal and yet said nothing — or even worse, helped for years to cover it up? Were they concerned with what was “best for Penn State”?

It remains yet to be seen how Penn State reacted, and what decisions it made, and what course it took. And what sort of business Penn State was in.

R. B. Parrish is author of The Duke Lacrosse Case: A Documentary History and Analysis of the Modern Scottsboro.


155 posted on 11/12/2011 2:42:29 AM PST by abb ("What ISN'T in the news is often more important than what IS." Ed Biersmith, 1942 -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; flintsilver7; antceecee; sand lake bar; little jeremiah; eyedigress
Yeah...I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing.

Excellent. I'm committing "theft" of this for my tagline. [See below for direct eyewitness evidence]

If you don't like it, go call your 'daddy' tonight about this "incident";
...then call your superior the next mornin' so you three can "huddle about it"...
...and then have him call his superiors the day after that.

I'm sure somebody will FREEPMAIL an interview or interrogation or somethin'...
...some day...
...some month...
...some year...
...some decade...
...some century...

But if you don't eventually recover this tagline, hey, it's not a FREEPER conspiracy or nothin'...

It'll be your fault...

'Cause your incident report just got 'lost in translation' or somethin' ...
...and you weren't 'cific 'nough...
...you were just too vague in describing the alleged 'theft'...
...You only said I 'massaged' that post and that you witnessed that 'something of a borrowed nature from a young poster' occurred...

...And of course...we "all know" that having communicated this alleged 'theft' once or twice this weekend, that you'll NEVER, EVER, EVER, NEVER, NEVER, EVER have a chance to send a FREEPMAIL or POST about it again to your superiors -- or receive any such similar query from them asking you to clarify what I did (or didn't do) overnight!

So, hey. If you don't want to get blamed for 'covering up' this alleged 'theft,' ya better make sure you send ONLY ONE communique to your immediate superior; and only ONE communique to his superiors!

After all, you know in your heart of hearts that your real goal isn't to EVER stop me from goin' round and stealin' posts and converting them into new tagline toys...

Your real objective of keepin' communiques minimal and buried away is to simply provide plausible denial in case this ever goes "public."

{You can thank me for this wise counsel of "How to Distance Yourself from a Tagline Thief in 5 Easy Steps" later...Oh, and hey, if you stay silent after those two communiques...who knows...I may even promote you to head of tagline thief recruits + some "white out" post}

156 posted on 11/12/2011 2:48:36 AM PST by Colofornian (I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack; antceecee; All; flintsilver7; eyedigress; Lancey Howard
By your own standards, that's an extremely illogical and intellectually inconsistent statement since Sandusky hasn't yet been tried in a court of law. No "abuser" has been convicted of any "abuse." Right now Sandusky hasn't been found guilty of anything. He's out on bail, by the way, so you're free to call him up to watch your kids this weekend. Why wouldn't you? After all, he hasn't been vetted by a court of law. If you wouldn't be willing to do that, is it possible you may have formed an opinion of him based on the information available? If that's the case, I've done no more than the same thing in the case of McQueary and Paterno...except that the information I have available as the basis of my judgment came from each of their own respective admissions and testimony!

Bingo! Home run! Grand slam!

No wonder antceecee turned tail after this post of yours and started in on the ad hominens! Before he did though, he tried to rely on this argument:

The cover up needs to be vetted in a court of law. [antceecee, post #41]

I do believe in our rights to a trial by jury and not media [antceecee, post #50]

So why are you against a full hearing in a court of law and INSTEAD seeking to string every person you view as part of this up in the nearest tree? [antceecee #46]

ALL: You hear this rapidly-becoming tired ole call for "due process" from Paterno defenders.

We already know that with Sandusky, Schultz, Curley -- and possibly Spanier as well if he is charged -- due process thru a trial awaits them.

But what about Paterno? He (and Spanier as of yet) have not been charged? Neither has McQueary, who will probably turn state's evidence vs. them all.

Shouldn't Paterno have rec'd "due process" like antceecee is repetitively calling for?

Well, the answer is, of course...IF Paterno is ever charged with anything!

But he hasn't been charged; and I don't think he will.

Therefore, it's been a matter of weighing...
...was he derelict in duty?
...did he violate NCAA ethical violations (like 2.4 -- that focuses on the need to exercise "responsibility" even off of the playing field)?
...did he fail to use basic moral and ethical common sense?

So if sweeping away JoePa's job has nothing to do with a court of law or a trial by jury, why do Paterno supporters keep appealing to that?

For that allow me to cite an apt response by columnist Scott Ostler:

Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?" The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered. But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided. It's the same deal on the flip side. We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno.

Yup, Joe 6-pack, you are right! As Ostler says, "We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno!" Source: Penn State's Joe Paterno gets what he deserves]

Oh, and btw, have you noticed that those who most vociferously defend Paterno in using a "due process" type of argument are the ones who tend to NEVER reference McQueary in that same way?

Why, if Paterno needs "due process," then why is it that when FREEPER Lancey Howard heard the Penn State fans post-firing they were out to lynch McQueary? Why not call for a fair drawn-out "due process" dimension with him?

Why was McQueary then getting death threats?

antceecee uses the word "lynch" on this thread as if anybody has threatened to "lynch" Paterno or the Penn State paycheck gang. [Well, perhaps they have toward Sandusky...who knows?]

Yet, the one person who some Penn Staters have literally threatened to kill is the one they tend to not accord "due process" to...McQueary...

157 posted on 11/12/2011 3:16:05 AM PST by Colofornian (I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
#1 I saw one of those informal polls on Thursday that a Web site will do

I would thereby guestimate then at least 1/3rd of Penn Staters informally sanction the idea that Joe's cover-up was a "good idea."

I think that’s a bit of a stretch and before you go off on me, here is why.

First of all let me say I’m not in any way supporting Paterno, who I once held in high regard but no more, and I think the BOT did the right thing and should have done it long before the proverbial crap hit the fan. And sure, there are some folks here in PA including I’m sure some PSU students who idolize JoePa and PSU football and think him incapable of any wrong doing (heck, there are a few here as well).

However I saw a few PSU students interviewed recently on local TV. Among some of those who felt the BOT was wrong, they clarified in saying that while it wasn’t necessarily wrong for the BOT to fire Paterno, at least some were upset with how it was handled. They felt that the BOT should have notified Paterno in person of the firing and before making it public and not doing it late at night as they did. Some thought that more needed to be known about Paterno’s involvement in any cover up before summarily firing him in the middle of the night. I'm not sure I agree but I understand their point.

If the poll was worded differently, say instead of “Did the Board of Trustees do the right thing by firing Paterno” and instead asked “If Paterno is found to have covered up for Sandusky…” I think the poll results might be very different. Polls are funny that way and wording is everything and that is why I take them, especially informal internet polls with a big grain of salt.

Again, I think what happened was vile, disgusting, deplorable and inexcusable. A lot of people seem to have known about Sandusky and did very little about it. And all of those people need to be held accountable, JoePa included. Even if some of the PSU officials did what was “legally” required, and I have some doubts that they did do all that was legally required, certainly many did not do what was ethically and morally required.

But I do not want to jump on the lynch mob band wagon either. I think of the Duke Lacrosse Case. There were innocent people smeared in that case in the court of public and media opinion before all the facts were known.

I read the grand jury report and it’s sickening. However there have been some posts on FR calling for Sandusky’s wife to be hauled off to jail because some surmise that she must have known or must have been involved herself. Some have proposed the whole university be shut down as they are; the faculty and student body (or at least a large number of them) all perverts. I think that’s hyperbole.

I hope that now that the GJ report is out and charges have been filed, that there is justice for the truly innocent victims and that Sandusky and anyone who covered for him get all they deserve. But that will be decided in a court of law.

It should also be mentioned that several thousand PSU students last night held a candle light vigil for the victims in this case and for all victims of child abuse.

I seriously doubt that 35% of the PSU students or residents of PA sanction pedophilia and child abuse and any cover up of such crimes.

158 posted on 11/12/2011 3:29:16 AM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
#1...the bottom line of my post is to really separate Penn State supporters into two camps:

(a) Those who are repentant of the "culture of cover up" that the Attorney General's statement mentions -- even if they had no direct tie to any overt cover up...

(b) And those who don't think Paterno should have been fired at all...no matter how and when he was told. These, I would say, continue to be part of the "cultural" problem of lack of accountability.

Btw, every major Old Testament prophet engaged in identificational repentance...asking God for forgiveness of sins that Israel committed -- but that they themselves personally were not guilty for...they identified with the sins of their people and pleaded with God to turn His people around.

[I agree with what you said re: the common objection in State College...Paterno being told by the BOT 10:00 at night over the phone]

So the "bottom line" is that you can't tell me there are not a sizeable # in that (b) category.

It should also be mentioned that several thousand PSU students last night held a candle light vigil for the victims in this case and for all victims of child abuse.

I have a Q re: this: I have seen in the Central PA media and one place elsewhere comments from Penn State students who said that their entire student body should not be judged by what perhaps 2-3% of their student population engaged in Wednesday night re: the riot.

IOW don't judge the 100% by the 2-3% Right?

The Media says that "several thousand" students & alumni were @ this vigil Friday night. Considering that a # of these were alumni (+ other members of the community), if we say that up to 2,000 were actual students, then that's 5% of the student body (40,000).

Now tell me: If 5% of the student body was at the vigil, why are you asking us to judge the 100% by the 5%? Especially in light of Penn State students telling us NOT to judge the 100% by the 3%?

Please convince me as to why we should consider the vigil "more representative" of the Penn State student body than the riot on Wednesday night?

159 posted on 11/12/2011 4:09:34 AM PST by Colofornian (I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

So disappointed to see so many Freepers defending Paterno. Ths story has captivated my wife and I. We are HUGE college football fans, I am an attorney and she is a child therapist. If you’ve read all the facts and articles, and know how PSU and college football operate, there is no way you can gave Paterno a pass on this and would not demand his termination.

And BTW, I have friends in academia close to this situation. They said that all but two of Sandusky’s victims are black. Wait until the media gets a hold of that info.


160 posted on 11/12/2011 4:21:45 AM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Now tell me: If 5% of the student body was at the vigil, why are you asking us to judge the 100% by the 5%? Especially in light of Penn State students telling us NOT to judge the 100% by the 3%?

Please convince me as to why we should consider the vigil "more representative" of the Penn State student body than the riot on Wednesday night?

Please go back and read my post again. I’m not saying the entire student body should be judged by the either the small percentage of rioters nor by the number of kids who came to the vigil. I was trying say that the 35% in the poll you quoted is not necessarily supporting pedophilia or the cover up of that crime as you inferred.

161 posted on 11/12/2011 4:38:17 AM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Treeless Branch
So disappointed to see so many Freepers defending Paterno. Ths story has captivated my wife and I. We are HUGE college football fans, I am an attorney and she is a child therapist. If you’ve read all the facts and articles, and know how PSU and college football operate, there is no way you can gave Paterno a pass on this and would not demand his termination. And BTW, I have friends in academia close to this situation. They said that all but two of Sandusky’s victims are black. Wait until the media gets a hold of that info.

Thank you for sharing from both your expertise and your networking.

That is shocking.

It's kind of like how the abortion rate is so much higher at the expense of black pre-borns than other races.

Doesn't that make children more vulnerably targeted simply on the basis of skin color? Why is it in many urban areas that abortionists have ensured to "set up chop shop" within minority neighborhoods? Sub-cultural exploitation?

Well, that's what we have with Sandusky: Sub-cultural exploitation. Targeted by (likely income) and race and from families where no father is present.

When men abandon their children in the womb, they become prey to the abortionist.

When men abandon their children to their sexual partners & ex-wives, they become prey to predators like Sandusky.

162 posted on 11/12/2011 4:45:05 AM PST by Colofornian (I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Treeless Branch; Lancey Howard
And BTW, I have friends in academia close to this situation. They said that all but two of Sandusky’s victims are black. Wait until the media gets a hold of that info.

Lancey is a Penn State grad who I've appreciated his sense of objectivity this week on various threads.

Lancey, you wrote a vanity Friday entitled If Jerry Sandusky had raped little GIRLS...

Lancey wrote: Had the 1998 witness seen Sandusky fondling or raping a 10-year-old girl rather than a little boy, and had the burly 28-year-old former PSU quarterback Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old girl, there would have been no running to Daddy or waiting until the next day to tell somebody about it. There would have been no hesitation about what to do. There would have been no reluctance to point the finger and condemn Sandusky as a pedophile. At the very core of Penn State's ruinous scandal, homosexuality is the elephant in the room - - homosexuality and the political correctness that comes with it. Regular old pedophilia is easy to get publicly outraged about. Even the suspicion of regular old pedophilia elicits menacing sneers at the accused. But little boys? Well, that's different. That's a homosexual thing...

I think Lancey that what Treeless Branch has shared offers yet another angle to what you wrote.

For example, what if simply shifted your comments above based upon the race of most of these victims and wrote?

Had the 1998 witness seen Sandusky fondling or raping a 10-year-old white girl or boy rather than a little black boy, and had the burly 28-year-old former PSU quarterback Mike McQueary witnessed Sandusky raping a 10-year-old girl, there would have been no running to Daddy or waiting until the next day to tell somebody about it. There would have been no hesitation about what to do. There would have been no reluctance to point the finger and condemn Sandusky as a pedophile. At the very core of Penn State's ruinous scandal, perhaps racism and possibly to some degree homosexuality is the elephant in the room - - racism, homosexuality and the political correctness that comes with it. Regular old pedophilia is easy to get publicly outraged about. Even the suspicion of regular old pedophilia elicits menacing sneers at the accused. But little black boys? Well, that's different. That's a racist and homosexual thing...

Oh, how I wish the focus was not becoming this clear...because what I am sensing here is that these white admins & white coaches may have "put up" with not intervening on behalf of the victims because the victims they knew of were black. They were deemed "expendable" -- especially in light of the alternative...

...Scandalizing the glory of the Penn State football team.

How can pedophilia get even worse?

#1 When its practice becomes institutionalized
#2 When child-victims of their rapists are ignored because their race deems them even more expendable than say, white victims.

Wow! Heart-breaking!!!! this week in which you mentioned

163 posted on 11/12/2011 5:03:08 AM PST by Colofornian (I’ve been amazed at some of the JoPologists and McScuses that have been surfacing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Heartbreaking indeed. How this story cannot bring strong feelings of rage and disgust and sadness is beyond me. And I think u are right that the underlying culture that places no value on young boys played at least some role in McQueery walking away from the rape where, as he describes it, HE LOOKED INTO THE EYES of both the victim and Sandusky as it was happening.

If anything this story should give us all pause to be vigilant for spotting evil and then doing something to stop it.


164 posted on 11/12/2011 5:36:53 AM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Every organization or community has its share of immoral, unethical, or even criminal people. This includes conservatives, Republicans, perhaps even Freepers. For the good people of these communities, these others and their actions cause feelings of shame and ambivalence. But should we blame or hold responsible the decent members of these groups for the actions of a few? Of course not.

I believe that many posters here are simply using this scandal as a means to vent their overall disgust with secular society. Have fun with that. Meanwhile, Penn State will move ahead and recover.


165 posted on 11/12/2011 5:44:06 AM PST by sand lake bar (You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Blane the board of directors for this mess. They mishandled everything from not having Sandusky charged when it was reported right down to firing Paterno over the phone.


166 posted on 11/12/2011 5:51:07 AM PST by linn37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Yes, in fact they are. University Park is its own town with its own zipcode, its own post office, and its own police force.


167 posted on 11/12/2011 5:55:49 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Treeless Branch
If you’ve read all the facts and articles, and know how PSU and college football operate, there is no way you can gave Paterno a pass on this and would not demand his termination.

What 'facts'?

I keep reading about LITTLE boys and CHILDREN, but have YET to see any data that tells the AGE of these folks at the time of the 'crime' in question.

They said that all but two of Sandusky’s victims are black.

A LOT of hearsay is going on!

168 posted on 11/12/2011 5:55:52 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Paterno took it to the police commissioner and put him in touch with the witness. What the hell else is he supposed to do? Why is this part of the story always lost or ignored?

We live in a world FILLED with SuperHeros! who defend the innocent and destroy the Evil Ones!

(We now expect EVERYONE to be that way.)

169 posted on 11/12/2011 5:58:07 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Hearsay!!! Hearsay is defined as out of court statements. The grand jury testimony is not hearsay.

You haven’t read the grand jury report, hvae you?


170 posted on 11/12/2011 6:00:35 AM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
"...there have been some posts on FR calling for Sandusky’s wife to be hauled off to jail because some surmise that she must have known or must have been involved herself."

I think she at least needs to be investigated...considering the alleged call she made to one of the victim's prior to his GJ testimony.

171 posted on 11/12/2011 6:03:03 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

You’re living in a world of blind ignorance and blind hate. I do not know if Paterno knew anything in 1998. The grand jury report never mentioned anything about Paterno knowing and in fact the general consensus I got from reading that report was that it was in fact buried from quite a few people, Paterno included. Is it possible that Paterno knew? He may have known the outcome of the investigation (no criminal charges) and what it was about, and that would explain why Sandusky’s tenure was cut short. We know now that that investigation was bungled and handled poorly. There is no reason to believe that details of an investigation are shared with a football coach because that’s simply not how the law works.

Barry Switzer is one of two people Paterno has ever said anything that can be construed as negative about. Barry Switzer knows nothing about Penn State and has long had an ax to grind. Barry Switzer, like you and others here, keep saying that people “KNEW” (I love how the caps lock key is broken on this point) when there is no evidence that people knew. Sandusky may not have been able to hide the fact that he was investigated for being a homosexual predator in 1998. However, HE WAS NOT CHARGED. Even if we assume that EVERYBODY KNEW the details of that, they CANNOT act as though he was charged with a crime, tried, and convicted. In fact the actions of everybody involved are consistent with those of somebody who suspects something and does not want the potential disaster involved with employing Sandusky. There is a HUGE difference between suspecting something is definitely wrong with somebody and having absolute ironclad proof (as did McQueary) that knowing that personal is a child rapist.

Do not parse words. You should know what I’m saying when I say something. I know what McQueary says he saw and I know what Paterno and others say they were told. I am not changing or spinning anything. The point is I wasn’t there and neither were you so all we can do is take the testimony of those involved and make an assumption. I was not quoting when I said “something” - I was pointing out that Paterno repeatedly denied being told it was forcible sodomy.

I have repeatedly stated that the witness to the felony had the responsibility to follow up. Check my post history if you’re capable of figuring out how. I have never said that it didn’t warrant follow-up. It does NOT warrant follow-up by somebody who didn’t witness the attack and already reported it to the proper authorities. After Paterno put McQueary in touch with Schultz, he can’t “follow up” because he was not a witness. I don’t know why I need to keep saying this. People should be (and hopefully will be) going to jail for failing to identify the victim and failing to press charges given eyewitness evidence. This does NOT include Paterno.

I refuse to give any weight to the argument that Paterno should have used his perceived power to force an investigation. Police don’t start investigations on hearsay just because they come from a famous figure. The law works the same way for Paterno as it does for anybody else. He’s a football coach with no more or less expertise on legal and moral matters than anybody else.

It may be found that Paterno did in fact know. I will not assume that this is the case when following a three year grand jury investigation no fault was found in Paterno. I do not, as does nearly every asshole with a keyboard from sports writers to message board posters, believe that Paterno should’ve been held to some ridiculously all-powerful standard when he wasn’t a witness to a crime. Many of the same people like Mark Madden and Ron Bracken have long been claiming that Paterno is a doddering old fool who doesn’t belong on the football field. That is, when it suits their agenda. Now, when it suits their agenda, he’s an evil genius mastermind that not only knows everything that goes on in State College - he controls it as well.

I admit that it is quite difficult to take you seriously because you clearly have no idea what the hell you’re talking about when it comes to the actual location. You’ve called it “College Station” and you’ve claimed that Paterno lives on campus. I lived there and thanks to the incompetence of dozens of people I will forever be tarnished by this. I am fortunate enough to be soon finishing my Ph.D. from another institution so maybe I can use a smaller font when I list Penn State. This makes me sick. My argument is that those who were responsible should pay, but the evidence doesn’t point to Paterno at all. It might in the future, but we live in a society governed by the rule of law and I’m not to convict a man without evidence.


172 posted on 11/12/2011 6:17:26 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
My argument is that those who were responsible should pay, but the evidence doesn’t point to Paterno at all.

Paterno stated the he didn't do enough; he knew!!

173 posted on 11/12/2011 6:21:47 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Many of the same people who have been critical of Paterno for years, calling him a doddering old fool who doesn’t know what’s going on at the actual football games, are now ascribing nearly unlimited knowledge and power to him because it suits their present agenda.


174 posted on 11/12/2011 6:22:00 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Paterno stated that “WITH THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT” he wishes he had done more. This does not strike me as an admission of guilt but rather a statement of fact. It simply states that if he knew what a monster Sandusky was he would have done everything he can. I am sure those who suspected Jeffrey Dahmer was up to something feel the same way, especially the cops who initially let him go.

If Paterno did know, then he deserves everything that’s been thrown at him. I will reserve judgment on this point because a) he says he didn’t know and b) there has not been any evidence presented yet to say that he did know. It’s a simple matter of not convicting anybody, legally or morally, without evidence.


175 posted on 11/12/2011 6:24:49 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: linn37
Blane the board of directors for this mess. They mishandled everything from not having Sandusky charged when it was reported right down to firing Paterno over the phone.

Yeah. dude. e-mail!

176 posted on 11/12/2011 6:33:54 AM PST by Oztrich Boy (New gets old. Steampunk is always cool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Flycatcher
Sadly, I don't know how to link you to that thread, but if you go straight to my posting history, you'll go straight there.

Here is the linked thread.

McQueary placed on administrative leave

177 posted on 11/12/2011 6:59:02 AM PST by Arrowhead1952 (Dear God, thanks for the rain, but please let it rain more in Texas. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Treeless Branch
You haven’t read the grand jury report, hvae you?

No; I have not.

Where is is posted?

178 posted on 11/12/2011 7:17:48 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Oh please. If the teacher had been a female, half of the FReeper men here would’ve been cheering the abuse on.

Society doesn’t seem to realize that boys need to be protected. Period.


179 posted on 11/12/2011 7:19:22 AM PST by Marie (Cain 9s Have Teeth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

Since I do not follow college ‘sports’, I had no idea who Joe was until this hit the news.


180 posted on 11/12/2011 7:19:22 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

One word: “Google.” :;
Seriously though. It is not hard to find.


181 posted on 11/12/2011 7:20:02 AM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“If you haven’t looked at FREEPER NewinTexsas’ list of who had prior knowledge of what Sandusky was up to...please review...I’m sure he might repost it on this thread.”

Thanks for the ping:

People we know that knew Sandusky raped little boys.

President Spanier
AD Curley
VP Schultz
PSU Attorney Wendell Courtney
Second Mile Attorney Wendell Courtney
University Police (Detective Ronald Schreffler)
State College Police (Detective Ralph Ralston)
Department of Welfare (Investigator Jerry Lauro)
Child Services
County DA Gricar
County Prosecutors
Coach McQueary
Dr. McQueary (Chief Operating Officer/Administrative Director Centre Medical)
Coach Paterno
Various elementary and high school officials
John DiNunzio (Keystone Central School District Interim Superintendent)
Second Mile officials
Second Mile President Jack Raykovitz
Joe Paterno’s staff including down to the janitors

Still to be determined:

Media
NCAA Coaches (Nobody wanted him when he retired)
Board of Trustees
School Teachers


182 posted on 11/12/2011 7:30:05 AM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
I keep reading about LITTLE boys and CHILDREN, but have YET to see any data that tells the AGE of these folks at the time of the 'crime' in question.

READ the GD Grand Jury report. It's been out a week!

183 posted on 11/12/2011 7:32:13 AM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
Since I do not follow college ‘sports’, I had no idea who Joe was until this hit the news.

Since you do not 'follow' it would be a good idea for you to 'gather a few facts' before coming here and claiming no one has any facts.

184 posted on 11/12/2011 7:38:47 AM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: NewinTexsas

I have friends in academia and college coaching. Buddy yesterday spoke with Bobby Bowden who told him that everyone thought Sandusky was gay.

I’m in Dallas. Welcome, NewinTexas.


185 posted on 11/12/2011 7:52:17 AM PST by Treeless Branch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
"...there have been some posts on FR calling for Sandusky’s wife to be hauled off to jail because some surmise that she must have known or must have been involved herself."

I think she at least needs to be investigated...considering the alleged call she made to one of the victim's prior to his GJ testimony.

If that is proven to be the case, then yes, absolutely, she should also be investigated and charged with covering up for the crime.

The point I was trying to make, and perhaps didn’t make all so well, was that we shouldn’t go on a witch hunt and presume that everyone and anyone even remotely involved is automatically guilty without knowing all the evidence. If Sandusky’s wife knew of his child abuse and was active in trying to cover up his crimes, then yes, she should be held accountable. And I'd have no problem with that.

186 posted on 11/12/2011 7:56:05 AM PST by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Treeless Branch
I have friends in academia and college coaching. Buddy yesterday spoke with Bobby Bowden who told him that everyone thought Sandusky was gay. I’m in Dallas. Welcome, NewinTexas.

I'm NW of Houston. Barry Switzer said no way everyone didn't know. You just don't keep that sort of thing secret in the locker room for that long.

187 posted on 11/12/2011 8:11:01 AM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA
I've never called for a witch hunt. What I've stated repeatedly on a number of these threads is that it seems to me too many people are equating moral culpability with legal culpability. It reeks of psycho-liberal "diversity", "non-judgmentalism", and moral relativism. Sandusky, for example, is fully entitled to due process, and in a legal sense, is certainly entitled to the presumption of innocence. But as I've asked others (without any answers), would you have him come watch your children this weekend while you went out for dinner and a movie? Of course you wouldn't, even though at this point he's been found guilty of absolutely nothing. We have to (or very well should) make our moral judgments based on the information available. There's a lot to be said about liberals reacting to things strictly on the basis of "feelings", but at the same time God has blessed us with our instincts and gut feelings to complement our rationale and our intellect. In a moral person, a "gut feeling" that something isn't right can be of tremendous value even though there may not be any rigidly adjudicated and examined evidence at hand.

If somebody you deeply trusted, respected and admired told you to avoid making a business deal with "Person A" telling you little more than "he's bad news," you would probably heed their advice, even in the absence of any hard evidence. There's nothing wrong with that, and in fact, most of life's decisions are made absent, "all the facts." Unsurprisingly, it seems to me, people with a strong moral compass still tend to make better decisions in the absence of all the information than those who don't have a strongly internalized sense of values to guide them.

For example, I (and all of us) only have a few facts about McQueary's inaction at the time he says he saw Sandusky raping the boy. At this point, no charges have been brought against him, much less adjudicated in a court of law, and in those regards he's fully entitled to the presumption of innocence. That does not in any way preclude me from forming an opinion (a 'judgment') about his role in this based on what I know. I don't have the power to try, convict or sentence him in a legal sense, so I do not have to observe the legal rules of evidence in forming my opinions and actions about him. If he were a member of my community I most certainly would base my actions and interactions with him on my opinions and avoid anything to do with him.

Hypothetically, it may come out that he had a perfectly legitimate, wholesome reason for dithering and walking away from a naked 50-something ass-raping a young boy in the shower, and if that would ever come to light, I'd re-evaluate my opinion of him. As it stands, I can't possibly imagine any possible explanation other than sheer cowardice, and I'll speak of him and his inaction in that regard until I'm persuaded otherwise.

I would imagine if it were McQueary himself, or his little brother being sodomized, he'd have either physically tried to end it immediately, or at the minimum, not hesitated to call 911 at the earliest opportunity. If by his own testimony, he was able to look into the eyes of that boy and simply turn his back to him...that's all I really need to know.

188 posted on 11/12/2011 8:27:17 AM PST by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: NewinTexsas

LOL, so now Barry Switzer is the new authority.

Keep adding people to your list. Soon we’ll have over a thousand people who knew. Because that’s the logical conclusion - everybody knew Sandusky was a child rapist and they protected him. Makes perfect sense, but why stop there? If you’re accusing dozens or hundreds of people of being complicit, why not accuse the townspeople as well?


189 posted on 11/12/2011 8:27:52 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Excellent, articulate post.

Thank you, Joe 6-pack.

190 posted on 11/12/2011 8:45:12 AM PST by Flycatcher (God speaks to us, through the supernal lightness of birds, in a special type of poetry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
If you’re accusing dozens or hundreds of people of being complicit, why not accuse the townspeople as well?

It's not called College State and University City for nuttin'

191 posted on 11/12/2011 8:52:49 AM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: NewinTexsas

Wonder if Fidel will be pulling for the Nittany Lions today?


192 posted on 11/12/2011 8:54:09 AM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

Paterno is a control freak; he knew. His assistant and the assistant’s dad told him in a face-to-face conversation. He was forced to retire for this very reason. Are you trying to say that Paterno would essentially fire a 30-year assistant for no reason?

Paterno made the decision that the facade of integrity and morality at Peen State was more important than the boys who were sexually brutalized. It really is that simple.


193 posted on 11/12/2011 9:26:22 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: linn37

Paterno didn’t deserve an in-person firing.


194 posted on 11/12/2011 9:27:36 AM PST by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Thanks for pinging me on this thread. I live in the east and it was way past my time to be up. This subject cannot be defended or excused. I had no desire to argue with those that are angry yet loyal. Soon that will become a realization that enablers allowed this to go on, their beloved coach included.


195 posted on 11/12/2011 10:35:55 AM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: NewinTexsas
Since you do not 'follow' it would be a good idea for you to 'gather a few facts' before coming here and claiming no one has any facts.

I merely said that I hadn't SEEN any.

LOt's of people stating things, but with no LINKS to the ACTUAL police reports.

196 posted on 11/12/2011 10:51:18 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I guess Joe Paterno’s choice of a high-profile, high-pressure attorney was a good one.

Wick Sollers is on the job now, doing damage control, as we can see by this thread with many “new” FReepers rushing to defend Paterno.

PUHLEEZE! It’s so transparent.

NY Daily News:

Joe Paterno hired a high-powered Washington lawyer to represent him Friday because, his son said, he wants to find the truth in the sex-abuse scandal enveloping Penn State University.

“My father’s desire is for the truth to be uncovered and he will work with his lawyers to that end,” said Scott Paterno, who confirmed that his father had hired J. Sedgwick “Wick” Sollers, who has represented former president George H.W. Bush in the past.

But legal experts wondered if he had begun to fear federal action in the case as well as Pennsylvania’s ongoing criminal investigation.

Paterno

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/joe-paterno-hires-lawyer-case-ends-defendant-penn-state-sex-abuse-civil-suit-article-1.976507#ixzz1dWDDrM6C


197 posted on 11/12/2011 11:00:37 AM PST by Palladin (Where is Ray Gricar?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Here, that took 5 seconds.

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf


198 posted on 11/12/2011 11:02:00 AM PST by eyedigress ((Old storm chaser from the west)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Lancey Howard

Kudos to Lancey for his post, and thanks for repeating it for those of us who missed it.


199 posted on 11/12/2011 11:11:16 AM PST by Palladin (Where is Ray Gricar?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Paterno took it to the police commissioner and put him in touch with the witness.

When are you going to quit spreading that lie?

200 posted on 11/12/2011 12:11:30 PM PST by NewinTexsas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-271 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson