Skip to comments.ESPN Sat on Molestation Tape Since 2002
Posted on 11/28/2011 12:38:55 PM PST by Kaslin
click here to read article
Truth is if Paterno had not gone to University officials about what he had been told (not witnessed) he would still have his job...just like Boeheim does (and the folks at ESPN).
ESPN didn't do enough! In fact, they didn't do anything!
Under what statute?
Boeheim only temporarily has a job. I suspect his initial statements (that Davis was just after money) may be his eventual undoing. This story is still developing.
As for ESPN, no, they didn't do enough. Whether they were legally required to or not. Just like Joe Paterno.
I remember the day when it first busted thru on the medium.. sports, lots of sports..
When they dropped the exercise gals uhhh workout programs, it was all over here.. Somehow, Leanne Tweedy made it to the next level tho.. still in purty darn good shape too.. ;-)
and then there’s Chris Berman? That’s another case.. is he gonna be carted off the set when he finally signs off? espn has definitely been an incubator.. of what remains an open question for many.. the schtick wore off a long time ago..
Disney has a lot of homosexuals who work for them. Homosexuals sometimes prey on children. Perverts of a feather, flock together.
So they should be fired, like Paterno, only the MSM is immune from the outrage they heap on others.
ESPN, the Eastern Sports Propaganda Network.
So why didn’t the newspaper turn the tape over to the police? Journalistic integrity? They should be held to account also!
Oh, and if he got the tape (received it) when the police were doing their investigation, then he definitely received it after the kid reported the incident to the police (my original assertion). My gut still says that he was unhappy with the progress, direction (or quite possibly both) of the investigation, got tired of waiting and looked to generate exposure any way he could. If he already reported the incident, then he was willing to deal with the shame of having been a victim of the crime. At that point, exposure of the perp by any means necessary was as likely as anything to cause recompense by the perp.
They enabled a pervert to get away with sexual abuse for 9 years. They weren’t even a bit curious the whole time.
I dunno which ESPN you were watching but they were visibly upset he got booted. Not once have they even stopped to think about all those victims of sexual abuse at the hands of sexual deviants as if ESPN somehow thought these perverts needed to be shielded and protected from criticism. Fast forward to this event and it all begins to make sense.
I like Mike & Mike and I like Cowherd. Though I get most of Cowherd’s show through his Thundering Herd podcast. At least with Cowherd for example, he didn’t go around making excuses for ESPN or Penn State or Paterno when the Jerry Sandusky story broke. Cowherd even choked up on the air after fielding a call from a sexual abuse victim. He didn’t know it was a victim beforehand, but it came out during the course of the phone call and he just let the guy just get it out of his system.
I know a guy who owns a software company. His company was next door to ours in the same office complex. We’d see him when we’d go out on cigar break around midday (take a cigar, cut it in half so it smokes for 20 minutes).
He worked for a time at Disney interactive. He was the ONLY hetero in on office designing software for children. It got so bad - the harrassment, abuse, and finally just the banishment - that he left and started his own gig.
It is BAD at Disney. This is a company who’s ENTIRE revenue model is designed around the wholesome entertainment of CHILDREN, and it is dominated by people who cannot have them biologically.
ESPN has evidence, no, a CONFESSION on tape of child rape and they SIT ON THE EVIDENCE FOR LACK OF CORROBORATION?
President of that division’s got to go, now. It’s that simple. Failure to do otherwise is going to lead customers and investors back to questions about Disney.
Disney has a Tylenol problem. It should pull the bad product off the shelves until new product can be put back on the shelf - fire the lot of them so that there is absolutely no question in anyone’s mind where Disney stands.
What part of seeing Sandusky in the shower with a young boy don't you (and the other Paterno defenders) don't understand?
“I wonder if the same people that have been calling for ending the football program at Penn State will now call for The Walt Disney Company to close down ESPN.”
“ESPN has some explaining to do. But once it knew, ESPN didn’t give Fine ESPN’s facilities as ‘candy’ to lure additional boys, nor let Fine orally and anally molest them on ESPN’s premises, as far as we know. That can’t be said of Penn State.”
The point of my post is that the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater in any case.
I believe in the rule of law. Those that committed crimes or knowingly looked the other way while crimes are committed need to be prosecuted and punished. I would be for death penalty for these crimes against children. If convicted, fry Sandusky and the coach from Syracuse. If convicted, imprison any official that allowed crimes to be committed.
What I don’t understand is how many here convict and want to punish those that had no knowledge or part of the crime. I think it’s more than a stretch to say that the entire 2011 Penn State football team participated in Sandusky’s crime, hid their knowledge of the crime, or protected Sandusky from authorities. Yet, many have called for closing down the entire program. Should the redshirt sophmore third string offensive lineman have his life plans turned upside down due to the decisions and actions of others? I think to close down an entire football program, basketball program, or network over the actions of a few only creates more victims.
Try it this way. Should a Catholic parish be closed down due to the improprieties of a priest? Should a Boy Scout troop be closed down due to inappropriate actions of a Scout Master?
At Penn State, I believe what you'll find is that many people above the level of Sandusky knew about his issues for years. They not only enabled them by taking no action, they took actions to prevent knowledge from reaching the appropriate sources.
In your examples, if a Scoutmaster was abusing boys for thirteen years, and the Troop Committee knew about it, and the Chartered Organization Representative knew about; if the Troop Committee and COR elected to hold their own investigation when a Scoutmaster was observed anally raping a Scout (actually, the boy as Penn State was likely not old enough to be a Boy Scout) and elected not to alert any law enforcement, the local District or Council, or the state's child welfare agency, then that Troop would have it's charter pulled by BSA National Headquarters in Texas.
If a priest was buggering altar boys for more than a decade, and (I'm not Roman Catholic and don't know the right terms) those in charge of that church (including local members of a governing board of the parish) not only knew about it but actively covered it up, allowed the priest to continue to have access to altar boys and to take them on trips with him, and elected not to notify the police when the priest was caught anally raping an altar boy in the confession booth, then heads need to roll above and beyond disciplining the priest.
The problem was football at Penn State and how the program was allowed to take precedence over the rule of law. We're finding out more and more about how the program operated above the rules of Penn State and Pennsylvania law - where Paterno was allowed to determine whether incidents involving football players would be reported to the police even if state law required it. If the football players are there for an education, then let them continue to learn on scholarship. If they're there to play football, then the NCAA should make an exception to the one-year loss of eligibility rule and let them transfer as they wish - if football is more important than a Penn State education.
But treating football as more important than morality, law, and ethics is what caused the problem. Removing football for a period of two years - or requiring home games to be played in an empty stadium - is the appropriate remedy. What Penn State did is much worse - incalculably worse - than what was done at SMU, and innocent players there had their lives turned upside down due to the decisions and actions of others.
First, my position is that when this first broke, Paterno was not being indicted. But everyone jumped on him. Since then, more info has come out, and it does appear that if Paterno did not know, it was willful ignorance.
Also, Paterno did not witness the incident. He was told about it. The Grand Jury testimony doesn't say what exactly was told to Paterno. And he did what he was legally required to do. I don't think the same can be said for ESPN.
My issue is that there were a boatload of FReepers who jumped to judgment before more info came out. But now, there is not the outrage now against ESPN with similar amount of evidence. Will it take more evidence against ESPN to get FReeper outrage, or was the outrage due to the fact it was PSU and Paterno? That's all I'm asking.
Paterno was told that something sexual happened on campus with a young boy and Sandusky, he testified to that fact.
Paterno had a MORAL obligation to do more.
Stop hiding behind his LEGAL obligation.
Thank you. You have proved my point. Where is your outrage at ESPN for doing LESS than what Paterno did?
Bingo. It must be, because the lack of outrage at ESPN is extraordinary.
Where is your moral outrage against Paterno?
Cowherd is from a small town on the Washington coast and went to Eastern Washington University (my school many years ago) and has no personal ties to either Syracuse or Penn State. The same cannot be said of many others at ESPN, many of whom are probably worried about ESPN’s willingness to let this story go unreported for a decade.
and this is the precise reason why the Jerry Sanduskys' of the world keep operating...
but if these were my boys...believe me, it wouldn't be ignored...
So moral outrage is conditional based on what you expect? Very convenient.
Do you expect me to be moral or not? If not, then I don't have to answer your question. If so, WHY do you expect me to be moral, and should the same standard be held for the individuals at ESPN who knew and suppressed this information?
However, I will answer your question: I don't condone anyone abusing children, and I hope the legal system dispenses the proper justice on all those involved at both PSU, Syracuse, and ESPN. I am disgusted that both of these actions were covered up for so long, and I think that there is more to this than what we know.
I also think that it is shameful for a network dedicated to sports news not to have the courage to investigate in greater detail the allegations that it had before it, or to turn the evidence over to the police.
Just to add a bit, even if we assume that statements reported may have been hearsay if offered in court, a good police investigation tracks down the original witnesses to testify, so those statements are no longer hearsay at trial. And in this case, since we already know about McQeary, they simply could have gotten him to testify personally to what he witnessed, which isn't hearsay.
The fact that you hear an allegation second-hand isn't any excuse not to investigation.
I can't say I take any pride in it, but I believe I was the first FR member to post the link to the Grand Jury presentment, back on November 4th or 5th.
In my profession, I'm trained to read a document at least twice. The first time I read it to see what's in it; the second time I read it to see what's not in it. Often times the second reading is just as important as the first.
I'm a grown man with no ties to Pennsylvania or Penn State, but JoePa was one of my last heros. As a kid back in Seattle, I put black electrical tape down the middle of my while backyard football helmet so I could 'play' for JoePa and the Nittany Lions.
That second reading - for what wasn't in it - made my stomach drop. In the GJ presentment, they're careful always to specifically say what Party A claims to have told Party B, and to specifically say what Party B claims to have been told by Party A. In one case involving a meeting among McQueary, Curley, and Schultz, the GJ presentment details what each person claims to have said or heard.
Out of all of the conversations detailed in the presentment, the GJ and prosecutor are extremely careful not to tell you exactly what McQueary says he told Joe Paterno. Paterno says he was told it was "fondling" or "something of a sexual nature" - but not anal rape. McQueary told everybody else it was anal rape.
The presentment goes into those details, except when addressing what McQueary told Paterno. Then it just says that McQueary told Paterno what he saw.
Curley and Schultz were charged with perjury for testifying that they weren't told it was anal rape. Paterno - an untouchable figure and an 84-year-old man, wasn't charged, although he testified that he wasn't told it was anal rape. And we're not told what McQueary testified he told Paterno. There's a big hole in the presentment. And the hole reads as if Paterno was shown respect and deference by not printing that information and by not charging Paterno with perjury although he apparently did the same thing as Curley and Schultz.
The Disney brand lost it’s moral compass years ago. ESPN is owned by the same Disney that has Gay Days at Walt Disney World.
I fully understand the intimate relationship between ESPN and colleges like Syracuse and Penn State. There isn’t a day goes by you flip over to ESPN and they’re showing some basketball or football game one one of these schools is playing that game. ESPN first and foremost is going to protect this relationship. That’s understandable. The kids playing out on the court or the field aren’t the guilty party. But ESPN needs to stop trying to protect the sexual predators at these campuses.
I have not read the presentment, so your explanation raises a question for me. Was the meeting where McQueary told Curley and Schultz what he saw a meeting at which JoPa was present as well? If so, then I think your suggestion of selective prosecution must be correct.
But if that was not the same meeting, I think there may be another explanation. Or perhaps two. The first is that perhaps because of JoPa's status, age, whatever, McQueary was simply more self-conscious when talking to him, and so didn't go into the same degree of detail he went into with the other two guys. He just sort of hinted at it because he was so uncomfortable with the subject matter, etc.. Or perhaps when he started going down that road, JP simply cut him off and told him to go talk to the higher ups.p> The other explanation is that regardless of what he actually told JoPa, McQueary's memory of/testimony to that exact conversation was not clear. Perhaps he was so shook up that he really couldn't remember it, or he was just protecting JP. So, there was insufficient detail to fill out the presentment on that issue, and insufficient detail to indict JoPa.
Personally, I think one of those two explanations is more likely than either the GC or the prosecutors having a clear case against JP, and just deciding not to prosecute/indict. But certainly, that is possible as well.
Disney does not organize nor officially support nor endorse the so-called "gay days". An outside group does all of that, and Disney World is merely the location of the "event".
By the same token, there's nothing stopping us from having "FR week" at Disney World. We could plan and organize the whole thing here at FR, purchase tickets at group rate discounts and resell them here, and all show up in our red, white & blue on the designated week. That doesn't mean Disney is sponsoring or endorsing it.
However, McQueary first spoke with Paterno, the morning after he witnessed the anal rape. The Grand Jury presentment says that McQueary told Paterno what he saw. It doesn't say he told Paterno part of what he saw. Or that because of Paterno's age only told Paterno in general terms what he saw.
Whatever Paterno heard, it was bad enough that Paterno not only contacted Curley the next day, he summoned Curley, the Athletic Director, and Schultz, the Senior Vice President of Business and Finance to his (Paterno's house). Do you think McQueary was so shook up at seeing the defensive coordinator for the Penn State team he played for as QB, the man whose son he went to school with, and played touch football with (in the vacant lot next to Paterno's house) was so shook up that (a) he could tell his father in detail the night before, and (b) tell Curley and Schultz in detail - but not Paterno?
And given that Sandusky had played for Paterno and been a coach under him for 30 years - and his defensive coordinator for about 20, that Paterno wouldn't have asked?
And if Paterno only thought some fondling may have taken place, why would he have not only contacted Curley, but Schultz? And Curley and Schultz were Paterno higher-ups only on an organizational chart. Paterno hired Curley.
It's surprising too frequent that prosecutors choose not to seek indictments against certain figures. Having thoroughly considered the presentment, I believe Paterno was one of those individuals a prosecutor chose not to indict.