All things Joe Paterno

[JaimeSommers]

RSBM ...

That is correct, but he had not yet been fired, and so the University had greater control over him than the retired Ganter.

We know that Ganter agreed to be interviewed by the Mirror on Friday, March 1, but do we know on what day he actually agreed to do the interview? He would have still been employed when he agreed to do it.

I keep going back to the Mirror column that was written about Ganter instead of the interview -- specifically (emphasis mine):

"Ever the soldier, whether directed all those years by Paterno to be careful with the football or by a board with its back to the wall, he did what he was told.
(...)
"I hoped to cover those topics - or at least the feelings he was willing to share - on Friday, the first day of the rest of Fran Ganter's life. But being the ultimate company man, he quietly declined."

Somebody (maybe Twindad?) said several posts ago that maybe Ganter was the go-to guy for covering things up. I think Ganter was the go-to guy because they knew he'd follow blindly and without question.

What an incredibly sad end to more than 40 years of a man's life ... made all the more sad because it was all so %#$&-ing avoidable.

 

[BigCat]

RSBM ...
And Saban is different how? They've got a statue of the man at the stadium -- sounds familiar. His daughter got off easy for assaulting another girl last year. He has power and control and a cult-like following by fans.

Do I agree with it? No. But let's be fair. We don't know what's going on in other football powerhouse programs. What about the rape coverup at Notre Dame? None of it is right.

Respectfully snipped

Let me attempt an analogy to explain my position: Exxon stated purpose is to make money, lots of it. The Catholic Church makes money, but its primary mission is to be God's Kingdom on Earth. A pedophilia scandal and cover-up occurred in the Catholic Church; the same can not be said about Exxon.

An organization that claims a higher purpose than serving its own self-interest is always susceptible to the charge of hypocrisy, which means the organization's leaders constantly face the temptation to conceal any failure on the part of its members.

I can say with absolute confidence that Nick Saban or Urban Meyer would have dismissed Sandusky immediately in 98 and barred him from any further access to the football building. Do I think they're wonderful men? No, not at all. They would be looking out for the own best interest. Loyalty means little to them.

To give you an example, I know of a coach at a "powerhouse program" who, within the last two months, instructed his top assistant that he should seek employment elsewhere or be terminated. The assistant was rumored to be having an affair. He's no longer at the university.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

BigCat, in all fairness, businesses have had numerous scandals over the years, and most do not attract children.

 

[Twindad]

RSBM ...



We know that Ganter agreed to be interviewed by the Mirror on Friday, March 1, but do we know on what day he actually agreed to do the interview? He would have still been employed when he agreed to do it.

I keep going back to the Mirror column that was written about Ganter instead of the interview -- specifically (emphasis mine):

"Ever the soldier, whether directed all those years by Paterno to be careful with the football or by a board with its back to the wall, he did what he was told.
(...)
"I hoped to cover those topics - or at least the feelings he was willing to share - on Friday, the first day of the rest of Fran Ganter's life. But being the ultimate company man, he quietly declined."

Somebody (maybe Twindad?) said several posts ago that maybe Ganter was the go-to guy for covering things up. I think Ganter was the go-to guy because they knew he'd follow blindly and without question.

What an incredibly sad end to more than 40 years of a man's life ... made all the more sad because it was all so %#$&-ing avoidable.

Yes, I did say that. If he was a man whom did what he was told, then who as telling him to attend these meetings? I would advance Paterno as the logical choice. He was the one typically to give Ganter orders. If one assumes Paterno was aware of Sandusky's pedophilia prior to 1998, it would be save to assume he wanted to keep himself distant from the situation, maybe by legal advise, yet still wanted to be kept in the loop and make sure the others involved got the message as to what he wanted, he would need a trusted proxy to deliver his message and report on the response. It has been noted Paterno didn't use e-mail, so no one was sending/receiving any.

I have always wondered who was JP's attorney in 1998, Wendell Courtney?

 

[JaimeSommers]

Yes, I did say that. If he was a man whom did what he was told, then who as telling him to attend these meetings? I would advance Paterno as the logical choice.

And I would have to agree with you.

If one assumes Paterno was aware of Sandusky's pedophilia prior to 1998, it would be save to assume he wanted to keep himself distant from the situation, maybe by legal advise, yet still wanted to be kept in the loop and make sure the others involved got the message as to what he wanted, he would need a trusted proxy to deliver his message and report on the response. It has been noted Paterno didn't use e-mail, so no one was sending/receiving any.

One of the many things that has infuriated me over the last 16 months is the number of people I've met who have said, "Well, I'd heard the rumors about Jerry for years."

WHAT?

These are people with no connection to football -- everyday people -- many not employed by the University. In one case, the person had heard rumors as far back as the eighties. They heard these rumors ... yet did nothing to check it out.

I will never believe 1998 was the first hint. Never.

I have always wondered who was JP's attorney in 1998, Wendell Courtney?

Wasn't Courtney the Second Mile's attorney? Not sure about Paterno (trying to find out, but nothing yet).

 

[Rlaub44]

If one assumes Paterno was aware of Sandusky's pedophilia prior to 1998,

That is a huge assumption to make, IMO

it would be save to assume he wanted to keep himself distant from the situation, maybe by legal advise, yet still wanted to be kept in the loop and make sure the others involved got the message as to what he wanted, he would need a trusted proxy to deliver his message and report on the response.

In this scenario, one would have to believe that Gricar was doing Penn State a favor by meeting with Sandusky's boss to get him treatment in lieu of prosecution, but Gricar then agreed to deliver the message to this proxy who had no power over Sandusky and in doing so, probably committed serious ethical violations by discussing these matters with Sandusky's colleague.

I would also like to point out that nobody has suggested that Gricar, Lauro, Schreffler or anyone else even bothered to ask Sandusky himself to seek treatment. We know Schreffler and Lauro didn't when they interviewed him. If you were the DA making this back-door deal, wouldn't the first step be to address the person most responsible for Sandusky; that is, Sandusky himself?

To me, it doesn't make lots of sense. It feels like we are jumping through tiny hoops to make the October meeting fit our own ideas about what happened.

It has been noted Paterno didn't use e-mail, so no one was sending/receiving any.
I have always wondered who was JP's attorney in 1998, Wendell Courtney?

I think we pondered this one on WS before, and IIRC, nobody could find whether or not he had one.

 

[JaimeSommers]

Source: Deadspin

http://m.deadspin.com/5912516/new-d...might-have-known-about-jerry-sandusky-in-1998

I had not heard the part BBM before.

You will find that (Paterno) was a very reliable man as well. When he planned to do something, he would do it. In fact, if you look at his agenda from 1998, you'll see that he almost always kept to his schedule, and that his only cancellations fall within a very narrow window of time.

The first cancellation is on May 15, two days after police listen in on Sandusky's half-confession to the mother of a young boy. That evening, Paterno cuts short a fundraising trip to Valley Forge, then cancels a four-day-long personal vacation he had been planning to take from May 16 to 19, to his summer home in Avalon, New Jersey. He resumes his scheduled fundraising trips in June, about a week after the investigation against Sandusky is dropped. He doesn't miss any more events for the remainder of the year.

The following season, Sandusky abruptly and unexpectedly announces his retirement.
(...)
The magazine spoke with a longtime friend of Tim Curley, the on-leave Penn State athletic director now charged with perjury in connection with the Sandusky case. Here's the pertinent passage:
(...)
When Sandusky left, the friend who's been close to Tim Curley for more than 40 years told the A.D. he was surprised the coach was gone.

"It's for a very good reason," Curley told him—but he wouldn't elaborate. (I attempted to talk to Curley, but he hasn't spoken to the media since the scandal broke.)

 

[JaimeSommers]

I think we pondered this one on WS before, and IIRC, nobody could find whether or not he had one.

Is it possible it was his son Scott, or would he have been too young at that time? He would have had to have had one, given his endorsements and other business dealings, yes? Or am I missing something?

 

[Twindad]

Yes, Rlaub44, I'm stretching it. Sometimes it's helpful to have someone else point that out.
Every once in a while, even though I was wrong, it points out where I might be right.

I don't think JP used his son as an attorney.

 

[JaimeSommers]

I don't think JP used his son as an attorney.

Something's been nagging at me about this all night. When everything came to light in 2011, a well-connected colleague made a comment about Joe's longtime attorney and friend -- and I cannot for the life of me remember who it was, but it was one of three people. I need to chew on this and see if I can figure out a way to discreetly find out.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

That is a huge assumption to make, IMO

I could not agree more. Paterno was a football coach by profession and had a nearly 50 year old degree in literature. That does not qualify him to identify pedophiles. I've been hugely critical of Spanier, et al., but I could easily understand how they missed it.

In this scenario, one would have to believe that Gricar was doing Penn State a favor by meeting with Sandusky's boss to get him treatment in lieu of prosecution, but Gricar then agreed to deliver the message to this proxy who had no power over Sandusky and in doing so, probably committed serious ethical violations by discussing these matters with Sandusky's colleague.

I would also like to point out that nobody has suggested that Gricar, Lauro, Schreffler or anyone else even bothered to ask Sandusky himself to seek treatment. We know Schreffler and Lauro didn't when they interviewed him. If you were the DA making this back-door deal, wouldn't the first step be to address the person most responsible for Sandusky; that is, Sandusky himself?

Remember that Ganter could be a witness as well.

As for ethics, I doubt it would be a violation. I could very easily believe a situation where Gricar talked to someone at Penn State, maybe not Ganter, and said that he wouldn't prosecute if Sandusky got help with the problem. As far as I could determine, that would not be illegal or unethical (though it would be a PR disaster for the Gricar family). If the hypothetical warning was heeded, it would have some advantages, for the DA's Office, Penn State, and could have prevented future victims; it would not be an illogical option.

Wick Sollers was Paterno's attorney even when the house was transferred to Sue.

 

[BigCat]

BigCat, in all fairness, businesses have had numerous scandals over the years, and most do not attract children.

Well, of course. That's my point. We expect scandals out of business. Thus, there is less incentive to cover them up.

And, you're correct, most businesses don't attract children, but plenty do; and, to my knowledge, no senior executive at an evil, money-grubbing corporation has been busted for sexually assaulting children in the company shower. Yet, children were sexually assaulted inside the Holy Temple of Penn State Football by the second-in-command to the Grand Poobah....and it was covered-up.

Even the most corrupt football programs and Fortune 500 companies never sink this low:

“Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.

***

"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University - Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities…although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky's victims."

 

[Reader]

ALL QUOTES RSBM:

RSBM ...

As a survivor of child sexual abuse, I have enough rage to go around, believe me. Again, Paterno failed, but he has been made a scapegoat in many ways -- vendettas were squared at the expense of these children. Spanier should be in prison (for starters).

I so agree about Spanier...even if all of the others involved had pushed for a cover up in not reporting the abuse in 2001, he knew better, he says so in his email, and had the power to change that decision..he AFAIC has the greater responsibility due to his position at the top of the pile.

BBM
Respectfully, that only holds true if you believe that Paterno directed the cover-up, which I personally do not. .......

I could argue that the "football culture" was far worse at schools where the coaching staff broke many NCAA rules to gain a competitive advantage, but I know everyone has made their minds up on Paterno, so it would make no difference.

See my above...I'll surprise you and say that I still have not made up my mind about Paterno, although I've blasted him in the past for not reporting the abuse in 2001. And I still do that...no matter all the regs and rules he consulted, he still could have picked up the phone if he was really concerned for the child, or gone to Curley or Schultz and told them he thought it needed to be reported. And I give him no quarter or excuse for putting if off on MM...as MM was his inferior, way below him, and just to ask if MM was OK is not good enough. I don't see where there was a real discussion about what MM told him in that. MM was scared of Paterno and had so much respect for him that he just left it up to his superior. I fault him for not reporting too but can understand it better than Paterno's failure. He stated in testimony he considered he HAD reported it to the police, in telling Curley and Schultz. Paterno knew better and knew about the email discussion and the final decision not to report to police/DPW. As J. J. says he knew there was no investigation as he was not contacted. At the time MM did not know that.

But, at this point I'm not sure if one of the parties actually directed a cover up deliberately, we've no evidence of what they discussed privately in person or by phone and there are other emails that have not been seen. The ultimate responsibility was on Spanier to me. Even if Paterno did not want it reported, he could have overruled that. I have a strong feeling they just let it ride because they DID NOT CARE and to me that is the most damning of all.

RSBM ...
We know that Ganter agreed to be interviewed by the Mirror on Friday, March 1, but do we know on what day he actually agreed to do the interview? He would have still been employed when he agreed to do it.

I keep going back to the Mirror column that was written about Ganter instead of the interview -- specifically (emphasis mine):

"Ever the soldier, whether directed all those years by Paterno to be careful with the football or by a board with its back to the wall, he did what he was told.
(...)
"I hoped to cover those topics - or at least the feelings he was willing to share - on Friday, the first day of the rest of Fran Ganter's life. But being the ultimate company man, he quietly declined."............

Jaime, do you have a link to that old Mirror article, please...I must have missed it in the last few pages....TIA...

I will never believe 1998 was the first hint. Never.

I so agree...in spite of the Paterno's report saying how manipulative abusers can be, JS was very blatent about what he was doing...constantly taking kids to the showers, dinners, trips, football clinics...I'm sure there were some at PSU that were educated enough about child abuse to recognize these signs...ignorance is no excuse to me...even if they could not prove anything some eyebrows had to be raised at times with his obvious enthrallment with young boys...none of the girls at TSM were ever taken on these activities....and even though 1998 case was closed, Schultz, Paterno and Curley knew JS had been told not to bring kids to the showers alone again, and knew he was still doing it. The worse thing I can say about all this group is they did not care about these kids, they were 2nd Mile kids, i.e., second class and what happened to them was not their concern.

...........As for ethics, I doubt it would be a violation. I could very easily believe a situation where Gricar talked to someone at Penn State, maybe not Ganter, and said that he wouldn't prosecute if Sandusky got help with the problem. As far as I could determine, that would not be illegal or unethical (though it would be a PR disaster for the Gricar family). If the hypothetical warning was heeded, it would have some advantages, for the DA's Office, Penn State, and could have prevented future victims; it would not be an illogical option...........

I keep wondering about this reason for the meeting and the message. If Gricar did not believe in psychology enough to even pay attention to the Chambers report, which although could not be used as evidence could have influenced him to believe JS was a pedophile and to charge him, why would he even believe 'getting help' would stop JS? That's putting psychology into action and seems a leap for Gricar to make from his disdain for the practice.

And I keep remembering Sloane saying the meeting was about an 'investigation'. I think maybe Gricar found out something else about JS and wanted to tell the people at the football program they better control him or he would file charges, and he took the LE with him to tell what they found out in their work on the case, since Ganter did not know. Maybe the mother called Gricar and complained that no charges were made and he wanted to make sure the parties would stop what JS was doing with kids. IDK, but 'getting help' for JS just does not seem in character from what has been said about Gricar. I think it was more serious than that to draw all those people together.

OK...I've written my book for the day...lol...have at it...

 

[JaimeSommers]

Jaime, do you have a link to that old Mirror article, please...I must have missed it in the last few pages....TIA...

Absolutely ... here it is.

Could be nothing, but could also indicate he isn't in a position to answer any questions:

Fran Ganter agreed to an interview Friday morning and then changed his mind, saying he'd prefer to let the flattering press release Penn State issued earlier in the week stand. - See more at: http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/c...its-quietly.html?nav=751#sthash.Y42BKw8F.dpuf

 

[JaimeSommers]

Paterno was a football coach by profession and had a nearly 50 year old degree in literature. That does not qualify him to identify pedophiles.

My late father and Joe were the same age. In thinking about Joe, I've frequently thought of my father's reaction (or lack thereof) when I told him and my mother 21 years ago that I had been abused. I was advised to stop dwelling on the negative and get on with my life. My mother had been abused by an uncle -- same attitude. I have frequently wondered whether there was a generational component to Joe's inability to take decisive action.

I am not making excuses for him or for anyone else. He failed. My father and mother failed. But I do think about generational ignorances.

I've been hugely critical of Spanier, et al., but I could easily understand how they missed it.

Spanier gets no pass from me. He was tenured faculty in Health & Human Development and claims to have been a survivor of child sexual abuse. He missed it because his ego prevented him from seeing anything that didn't feed his bloated sense of self-importance. It still does.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

My late father and Joe were the same age. In thinking about Joe, I've frequently thought of my father's reaction (or lack thereof) when I told him and my mother 21 years ago that I had been abused. I was advised to stop dwelling on the negative and get on with my life. My mother had been abused by an uncle -- same attitude. I have frequently wondered whether there was a generational component to Joe's inability to take decisive action.

I am not making excuses for him or for anyone else. He failed. My father and mother failed. But I do think about generational ignorances.

I was never abused, but I have a father who was a few years older that Paterno, and, yes, I could see it. My family was one of secrets, in previous generations. Some (possibly racial) could be understood in the time, but scandals were hushed up.

Spanier gets no pass from me. He was tenured faculty in Health & Human Development and claims to have been a survivor of child sexual abuse. He missed it because his ego prevented him from seeing anything that didn't feed his bloated sense of self-importance. It still does.

I think he claimed it was physical abuse, but not of a sexual nature. I certainly find Spanier's post presidency distasteful, but a degree in sociology didn't qualify him to understand grooming techniques. Seasock had a masters in psychology in 1998, and he failed badly at discovering it.

Ego, yes, but he could back at least some of it up with a successful track record. Success breeds ego. He was important because of his accomplishments, including his position. He is no longer important.

 

[JaimeSommers]

I certainly find Spanier's post presidency distasteful, but a degree in sociology didn't qualify him to understand grooming techniques.

A degree in sociology with a research focus in sexual behaviors -- almost a dozen books and a hundred or so articles -- absolutely qualifies him to pay the h*** attention when he hears a coach has a boy in the shower.

Seasock had a masters in psychology in 1998, and he failed badly at discovering it.

Comparing Seasock to Spanier is like saying I'm Tiger Woods because I've played miniature golf.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

A degree in sociology with a research focus in sexual behaviors -- almost a dozen books and a hundred or so articles -- absolutely qualifies him to pay the h*** attention when he hears a coach has a boy in the shower.

In society, yes. I'm talking about recognizing "grooming."

Anything specifically on pedophilia?

Comparing Seasock to Spanier is like saying I'm Tiger Woods because I've played miniature golf.

No, it's like comparing the Michael Jordan to the tennis pro at the county club. Jordan is a world class athlete, but tennis isn't his game. Tennis is the tennis pro's game. This was tennis (and I hate sports analogies).

 

[JaimeSommers]

In society, yes. I'm talking about recognizing "grooming."

Anything specifically on pedophilia?

I'm not going to argue with you, J. J. I haven't published two words on pedophilia, but I can recognize when someone has inappropriate contact with a child that warrants action. Spanier's research was on sexual behavior, not nuclear engineering. You don't think deviance came up along the way?

No, it's like comparing the Michael Jordan to the tennis pro at the county club.

My analogy was sufficient without your correction.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not going to argue with you, J. J. I haven't published two words on pedophilia, but I can recognize when someone has inappropriate contact with a child that warrants action. Spanier's research was on sexual behavior, not nuclear engineering. You don't think deviance came up along the way?

I'm not talking specifically about the McQueary incident bit if he could have known seen some activities that might have indicated Sandusky was grooming. Until this case broke, I had never heard of grooming.

My analogy was sufficient without your correction.

I do not think it was valid, again with grooming. I would not expect Spanier, Schultz, Curley or Paterno to recognize that activity (or frankly Schreffler or Gricar). I would expect someone with a master's in psychology to be more likely to recognize it.