PSU Football - The Freeh Report

[sfphillyfan]

I'm glad the fine is going towards child abuse prevention.

[sonnyj]

While all of those things that you listed would be nice to be eliminated, they do not represent what happened at Penn State. The program was so out of control that they covered up rape cases, not petty little violations that you pointed out. Come on.

what "rape" case was covered up. The report mentions none. The report mentions that they covered up behavior by Sandusky that should have evoked reasonable suspicion of child abuse. the 1998 investigation that was dropped for lack of evidence and unsubstantiated by child welfare, and the 2001 incident reported by McQueary, for which by the way there was no conviction relating to this alleged victim. You illustrate the imputation of knowledge made by the conclusions and inferences of the report. Which is what happens in the hysteria of media trials.

[sdeaglefan]

Paragraph 1 of the executive summary of the report refers to "multiple counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, corruption of minors, unlawful contact with minors and endangering the* welfare of minors" as the charges against Sandusky. The word "rape" isn't there, true.

It then refers to Athletic Director Curley and Senior Vice President Finance and Business Schultz as being charged for failing to report allegations of child abuse against Sandusky to law enforcement or child protection authorities in 2002, and committing perjury during their testimony about the allegations to the Grand Jury in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in January 2011. Sounds like a coverup charge to me.

http://www.thefreehreportonpsu.com/R...NAL_071212.pdf

[Eagle60]

what "rape" case was covered up. The report mentions none. The report mentions that they covered up behavior by Sandusky that should have evoked reasonable suspicion of child abuse. the 1998 investigation that was dropped for lack of evidence and unsubstantiated by child welfare, and the 2001 incident reported by McQueary, for which by the way there was no conviction relating to this alleged victim. You illustrate the imputation of knowledge made by the conclusions and inferences of the report. Which is what happens in the hysteria of media trials.

Just how many times do you have to get hit in the face with a dead fish before you know it stinks Sonny?

[sonnyj]

I don't go fishing. That's for ex FBI chiefs. I know what Sanduskydid. The question is did the gang of four know what he was doing? I find it hard to believe that they truly believed he was abusing children. There's many inferences to draw from their behavior, one inference I cannot buy is that they KNEW of his criminal behavior. There's probably a hundred or so people with the same knowledge they had in 2001 that didn't report it. If you ask me if they should they have reported it...absolutely. If I were the lawyer at Penn State I would have advised them to do so, or else reported it myself. That's because I've worked in this field for so long. I've actually had experience in cases with people who have regretted not reporting suspect behavior. Hindsight vs foresight. I'm basically a forgiving person. The closest analogous situations i can think of... is when folks don't take the keys from or report a drunk who's driving a car. Hardly anyone does, and regrets it after someone is killed. The mob isn't so forgiving in the midst of media frenzy. Child sexual abuse creates this mass hysteria where it's difficult to to apply reason. No telling what the PSU lawyers advised these folks about the Grand Jury probe. Again if i were their lawyer i would have advised...be as open as you can, don't be like a child and get in more trouble by lying. Of course by then it was too late...I think the fallout would have been almost as great if they were honest about the discussions of 2001. But the issue I'm talking about is did they have enough knowledge about what Sandusky was doing...I'm open to hearing all the facts, but at this time I cannot conceive of these men being that heinous just save the face of a football program. They chose a course that many families and businesses take....talk to the guy, see if he'll acknowledge is problem and seek help...see if he'll confess. I'm actually interested to see follow up on these lines. Who spoke to Sandusky. What did he say. Did he seek help. Did Sue paterno and Dottie Sandusky talk about this. You know being around a lot of these cases i've encountered tons of people who have been deceived by pedophiles. Tons...that's why they succeed in their pillage of young men. The inference that the gang of four would let this man on campus after the decision to talk with him actually knowing of sodomy is a difficult one to grasp. In all of this hysteria however, we jump over all the inferences and accept as gospel the worst. Just human nature in cases like this. Since I've worked in this field for so long, I'm learning more about the dynamics of media induced frenzy than anything about child abuse. When Joe said he was "shocked" I do believe him. But it means I don't react as severely as the mob about his behavior, and I don't buy the collective response that the football program was the cause of victimization. And I don't buy that the hypocritical NCAA had any business sanctioning PSU, just as I've been critical of most of their sanctioning which targets the bystanders not the offenders. Giving boards like that arbitrary and capricious powers defies our notions of due process, and allows the board to do things to preserve its own image, not necessarly mete out fair and reasonable justice. Feel the same way about the "Bounty" case and the NFL.

At this point I'm trying to ease all of this out of my mind. Being in child advocacy this case has haunted me. Now I'll think of less stressful things like: who's going to play
Paterno in the movie.....Pacino I think could play him in scenes from 2001 to his death. Actually Peter Falk if he were alive would have been a consideration. Now I'm writing a short play with Joe meeting with St. Peter and others in the way station to heaven. Take my mind away from dealing with the media, and helps fill in a lot of the blanks.

[sfphillyfan]

Pacino would be good. Except he's already played a football coach and probably doesn't want to go back down that route.

[sonnyj]

I thought of that...but any good film director would make this film with Shakepearean
or Greek tragedy themes...right up Pacino's alley.

[Jukin]

The problem I have is that these idiots decided that they could conduct their own investigation as a substitute for a real investigation led by the state with people who know what they're doing in child abuse cases. SonnyJ if what you are proposing is true, that they hoped to get him "to admit he had a problem", that in my opinion is the most critical evidence of guilt there is! If they thought he needed to acknowledge that he had a problem it's a sign that they thought he had a problem. Thinking that he has a problem obligates them to act on behalf of the kids he's in contact. That means reporting the situation to insure those kids are not in danger.

Instead they thought their own judgement was better than that of the State Child Protective Services? Sorry but there's no way they were thinking about the kids in this scenario. They're only thinking about Sandusky's reputation and I have to assume that of the program. Protecting those kids meant getting someone involved that would be their advocate and they simply didn't take any actions on behalf of the kids Sandusky was bringing to the gym. If they thought he had a problem, and I believe they did, then this is completely irresponsible and borders on criminal negligence IMO.

[sonnyj]

The problem I have is that these idiots decided that they could conduct their own investigation as a substitute for a real investigation led by the state with people who know what they're doing in child abuse cases. SonnyJ if what you are proposing is true, that they hoped to get him "to admit he had a problem", that in my opinion is the most critical evidence of guilt there is! If they thought he needed to acknowledge that he had a problem it's a sign that they thought he had a problem. Thinking that he has a problem obligates them to act on behalf of the kids he's in contact. That means reporting the situation to insure those kids are not in danger.

Instead they thought their own judgement was better than that of the State Child Protective Services? Sorry but there's no way they were thinking about the kids in this scenario. They're only thinking about Sandusky's reputation and I have to assume that of the program. Protecting those kids meant getting someone involved that would be their advocate and they simply didn't take any actions on behalf of the kids Sandusky was bringing to the gym. If they thought he had a problem, and I believe they did, then this is completely irresponsible and borders on criminal negligence IMO.

No basically I don't know enough about those transactions, and the Freeh report is quite vague about it. I didn't say the men thought he had a problem licking little boy's penises or sodomizing them. I'm interested in learning more. Many inferences from that information. The worst of course would be the inference that they knew he put his penis in the kids bottom and said go get help. Another would be you know you love being around young men, do you think you have a problem. Another, hey Jerry you want to tell us anything about this...did you rape the boy...Jerry says no...well do you think you have a problem? He says no, and then they say well you should see someone. Remember the 1998 investigation done by Child Welfare (and how many kids he violated prior to that we don't really know) said Sandusky didn't have the profile of a pedophile. They were even fooled by Sandusky. It very well could be that if the investigation occurred in 2001 the results would have been the same. I've had cases where several reports against the same person were unsubstantiated. These cases that don't involve physical evidence and reticense of victims sadly remain very grey, not black and white. One lawyer i talked with brought up the point: what if they made a report and fired Jerry on the spot. In this world of a lawyer on every street corner Penn State would have had a big employment case on its hands. The fact they let Jerry stay on campus leads me to an inference that they didn't believe he raped any children. Now you can say that's foolish, but it's an inference that makes sense to me. Again I wouldn't have advised them to do this. But, they removed one box off the shelf and wham 100 other boxes fell.

[NoDakIggle]

sonny, having been in law enforcement for many, many years I have to say I very much agree with your assessment of human nature. I fully believe they didn't believe what could be going on. But I fault them for allowing the potential situation to go on. No reason to allow a man of Sandusky's age and position to be showering wwith young boys. Doesn't matter what they were doing. Just like there is no reason to allow a male adult to shower with his 13 year old niece. Doesn't matter if they are just a close family and nothing is going on. You are setting yourself up for a problem.

[tinopuno]

sonny, having been in law enforcement for many, many years I have to say I very much agree with your assessment of human nature. I fully believe they didn't believe what could be going on. But I fault them for allowing the potential situation to go on. No reason to allow a man of Sandusky's age and position to be showering wwith young boys. Doesn't matter what they were doing. Just like there is no reason to allow a male adult to shower with his 13 year old niece. Doesn't matter if they are just a close family and nothing is going on. You are setting yourself up for a problem.

Nodak,
In a few words you state both sides of the 'debate' eloquently. We are inclined to have difficulty believing people we like are capable of doing awful things (just as we have little difficulty believing that those we really dislike are capable of despicable motives and behavior).

That said, these four intelligent men in positions of trust were honor bound to report the 2001 shower incident to the appropriate agency for review. To me, the most damning fact known to all of them in 2001 was that Sandusky had been warned following the 1998 incident that showering with young boys was totally inappropriate under any circumstance and that Sandusky agreed not to do it again. The fact the he showed such grossly impaired judgement as to do so again should have been a red flag to any and all of the four. Did none of the four say to themselves or to one of the other three, "Jerry was clearly told not to do that again. What the fuck is the matter with him that he would do it?"

[Jukin]

The State of Pennsylvania is now suing the NCAA over the sanctions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20...sanctions.html