All things Joe Paterno

[Twindad]

Seasock and Spanier have something in common. They are both underqualified men whom overstate their qualifications in a deliberate manner.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Seasock and Spanier have something in common. They are both underqualified men whom overstate their qualifications in a deliberate manner.

I have not seen any suggested that Seasock ever claimed to be more than he was. His resume was not padded. Other people, when he was not present, assumed his qualifications were better than they were.

I wouldn't say Spanier did, but he assumed greater power than he had.

 

[Rlaub44]

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.

Snipped for focus.

So let's pretend John Doe was suspected of using drugs, but the DA chose not to press charges. Nobody ever came to Doe and asked him to seek treatment for his drug problem (to which he may or may not have agreed); instead, the DA went to his employer and asked them to ensure that John Doe went to treatment, or else there would be charges filed against him.

Does this scenario sound at all possible? Am I the only one who sees this as highly illogical, either in my example or in the real-life Sandusky situation?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Snipped for focus.

So let's pretend John Doe was suspected of using drugs, but the DA chose not to press charges. Nobody ever came to Doe and asked him to seek treatment for his drug problem (to which he may or may not have agreed); instead, the DA went to his employer and asked them to ensure that John Doe went to treatment, or else there would be charges filed against him.

Does this scenario sound at all possible? Am I the only one who sees this as highly illogical, either in my example or in the real-life Sandusky situation?

Perhaps an intervention of some sort? If Doe was a high profile employee and his drug use would damage the organization, in might break down that way.

 

[Rlaub44]

Perhaps an intervention of some sort? If Doe was a high profile employee and his drug use would damage the organization, in might break down that way.

I could only see that if Sandusky himself were involved, or had already been approached about his "problem". All we know is that he was instructed to stop showering with young boys.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I could only see that if Sandusky himself were involved, or had already been approached about his "problem". All we know is that he was instructed to stop showering with young boys.

I think there is a large piece that we are missing.

Gricar made his decision without talking to Sandusky.

 

[Rlaub44]

I think there is a large piece that we are missing.

Gricar made his decision without talking to Sandusky.

And that isn't too surprising, as he reviewed the information and determined that criminal charges were not warranted. Whether or not we agree with his decision, I would imagine many DA's never need to speak to the accused before determining whether to prosecute.

But to jump from that to suggesting a clandestine meeting with Sandusky's employers basically holding them responsible for him getting treatment, without ever (to our knowledge) asking the individual himself to get treated, seems bizarre.

While I agree that nothing about this case has been ordinary, why would Gricar not meet with Sandusky and tell him that we find your behavior very disturbing, and unless you complete an approved treatment program, we will have to consider charging you with ________?

I believe that, although Sandusky had to be nervous during Schreffler and Lauro's investigation, being cleared of any charges had to have emboldened him and enabled him to think he could outsmart the system. Had Gricar confronted him with that deal, the fear of being exposed as a pedophile might have prompted him to address his compulsion.

You are correct though, that we are definitely missing pieces to this puzzle. Perhaps when we hear the rest of the story, the purposes of the October meeting might all make perfect sense, and may even answer some nagging questions about Gricar's decision, as well as Paterno's knowledge and involvement.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

And that isn't too surprising, as he reviewed the information and determined that criminal charges were not warranted. Whether or not we agree with his decision, I would imagine many DA's never need to speak to the accused before determining whether to prosecute.

The police did not even speak with Sandusky prior to Gricar's decision, and yes, that is unusual. In the Phillips case, he was interviewed by the police.

But to jump from that to suggesting a clandestine meeting with Sandusky's employers basically holding them responsible for him getting treatment, without ever (to our knowledge) asking the individual himself to get treated, seems bizarre.

While I agree that nothing about this case has been ordinary, why would Gricar not meet with Sandusky and tell him that we find your behavior very disturbing, and unless you complete an approved treatment program, we will have to consider charging you with ________?

I believe that, although Sandusky had to be nervous during Schreffler and Lauro's investigation, being cleared of any charges had to have emboldened him and enabled him to think he could outsmart the system. Had Gricar confronted him with that deal, the fear of being exposed as a pedophile might have prompted him to address his compulsion.

You are correct though, that we are definitely missing pieces to this puzzle. Perhaps when we hear the rest of the story, the purposes of the October meeting might all make perfect sense, and may even answer some nagging questions about Gricar's decision, as well as Paterno's knowledge and involvement.

There is another possibility; someone at Penn State made the offer, e.g. *We'll take care of it, if you don't prosecute.** I think close to 50% of the county has a tie to the University, alumni, employee, or spouse of one, so it was a powerful force.

Sandusky was bold enough to talk to Costas, so I don't think that talking with Gricar would have made a difference. Honestly, I think this was the central point of his, Sandusky's, life. It was his reason for not being the head coach of Penn State, and possibly for not taking jobs elsewhere.

 

[Rlaub44]

The police did not even speak with Sandusky prior to Gricar's decision, and yes, that is unusual. In the Phillips case, he was interviewed by the police.

One very odd thing about that; and I know we are drifting far from the thread title "All things Joe Paterno":

In Schreffler's report, he indicates that when Lauro first contacted him on May 5, 1998, he made arrangements to meet with Schreffler on the morning of May 7 to interview Sandusky. The only known interview with Sandusky appears to be on June 1st, and as you said, the determination had already been made at that time that no charges would be filed.

We might wonder if an interview had been conducted that was not reflected in the police report, but one can hardly believe that Sandusky would have continued to call the victim's home and act as he did when confronted by the mother during his visit to the boy's house on May 13th.

One wonders why Sandusky was not interviewed until 3 1/2 weeks later than originally planned, and not until the outcome of the investigation had already been basically determined?

Sandusky was bold enough to talk to Costas, so I don't think that talking with Gricar would have made a difference.

When he did the interview with Costas, Sandusky knew the kind of trouble he was facing, and had little to lose in trying to fool everyone and repaired his tattered name. Having the tough local prosecutor threaten to charge you unless you comply is a different matter, as there is still an opportunity to get out of it at that point.

Sandusky knew one word from Gricar would end the Second Mile, and dry up his source for procuring victims. He also would have realized he wasn't fooling everyone, and might not have continued bringing boys to places (like Lasch Building) where he might get caught. He would no longer have been "Harmless Ol Jerry."

Even if treatment was unsuccessful, or if he didn't follow through, I wonder if the very real threat of exposure would have scared him into pulling back for a while. I fear that having it brushed aside left him feeling bulletproof, and allowed him to continue unabated until Curley spoke with him and Raykovitz in 2001.

If I am reading the timelines correctly, following the "close call" Sandusky must have felt he had in 2001, there are no other allegations by victims until 2006-2007, a full 5 years later. While this is no proof that nothing occurred during this time, it may be an indication that he did get scared by almost getting caught, and it took time for him to again work up the courage to brazenly molest his next victim.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully, as always, snipped

Even if treatment was unsuccessful, or if he didn't follow through, I wonder if the very real threat of exposure would have scared him into pulling back for a while. I fear that having it brushed aside left him feeling bulletproof, and allowed him to continue unabated until Curley spoke with him and Raykovitz in 2001.


If I am reading the timelines correctly, following the "close call" Sandusky must have felt he had in 2001, there are no other allegations by victims until 2006-2007, a full 5 years later. While this is no proof that nothing occurred during this time, it may be an indication that he did get scared by almost getting caught, and it took time for him to again work up the courage to brazenly molest his next victim.

Victim 9 was assaulted in 2004, per the 12/7/11 supplemental presentment, and I think one of the other victims was assaulted in the shower a few months after the incident McQueary reported. That was brought out during the trial, I think. 1998 was reported, but "Jer" was back at it in 2000, if not earlier.

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully, as always, snipped

Victim 9 was assaulted in 2004, per the 12/7/11 supplemental presentment, and I think one of the other victims was assaulted in the shower a few months after the incident McQueary reported. That was brought out during the trial, I think. 1998 was reported, but "Jer" was back at it in 2000, if not earlier.

Yep, and my contention is that it is because his behavior was written off by LE and DPW in 98 as poor judgment and not criminal, leading him to feel as if he could continue to be touchy-feely Uncle Jer.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Yep, and my contention is that it is because his behavior was written off by LE and DPW in 98 as poor judgment and not criminal, leading him to feel as if he could continue to be touchy-feely Uncle Jer.

I think Sandusky was still bringing people into the shower in the summer of 2001, after McQueary reported it.

 

[BigCat]

If I am reading the timelines correctly, following the "close call" Sandusky must have felt he had in 2001, there are no other allegations by victims until 2006-2007, a full 5 years later. While this is no proof that nothing occurred during this time, it may be an indication that he did get scared by almost getting caught, and it took time for him to again work up the courage to brazenly molest his next victim.

Respectfully snipped

That's one possible explanation. Personally, I think he simply didn't have the opportunity. Where else was it acceptable for 60 year old men to shower with boys other than the Lasch Building at Penn State in 2001?

By banning Sandusky from the football building in 2001, Curley undoubtedly spared numerous boys from being sexually assaulted. Unfortunately, his decision was 3 years too late. (Please, no one suggest he had no legal reason to ban Sandusky. Does anyone believe Curley or Paterno would have let their grandchildren shower with Ol' Jer post 98?)

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

That's one possible explanation. Personally, I think he simply didn't have the opportunity. Where else was it acceptable for 60 year old men to shower with boys other than the Lasch Building at Penn State in 2001?

BBM

Well, the YMCA in Bellefonte. I can understand why anybody there would not equate a 60 year old man in a communal shower with a young boy would not too unusual. I had a former DA insisting that it wasn't illegal and that there was no reason to do anything about it.

What was reported by Victim 6 and McQueary were more than a 60 year old being in the shower with a young boy.

By banning Sandusky from the football building in 2001, Curley undoubtedly spared numerous boys from being sexually assaulted. Unfortunately, his decision was 3 years too late. (Please, no one suggest he had no legal reason to ban Sandusky. Does anyone believe Curley or Paterno would have let their grandchildren shower with Ol' Jer post 98?)

I think you want to recheck either the threads or the transcript, because I think Sandusky brought in one of his victims after the "banning."

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped

That's one possible explanation. Personally, I think he simply didn't have the opportunity. Where else was it acceptable for 60 year old men to shower with boys other than the Lasch Building at Penn State in 2001?

By banning Sandusky from the football building in 2001, Curley undoubtedly spared numerous boys from being sexually assaulted. Unfortunately, his decision was 3 years too late. (Please, no one suggest he had no legal reason to ban Sandusky. Does anyone believe Curley or Paterno would have let their grandchildren shower with Ol' Jer post 98?)

That is a good point.

We also know that victims were assaulted in the Sandusky basement, there was an allegation of improper touching at a University pool, and if one believes former assistant coach Booker Brooks, it is common to shower with young children of either gender at the YMCA.

And lets be fair - If Paterno and Curley had reason to keep kids away from Sandusky in 98, Lauro as the trained professional had even more reason, and yet he never notified the Second Mile as he was legally obligated to do. Sandusky in the Lasch building was only a problem if he had access to victims to bring with him. Plus, as he was still employed as a coach until the end of the following season, so banning him outright from his office was not much of an option until after his retirement.

That brings up another related thought. We are discussing the October meeting with Ganter - if Gricar felt he had to push somebody to get treatment for Sandusky, why not meet with the Second Mile? They had much more to lose if their founder was charged with sexually abusing children, and Sandusky was acting in his capacity as a Second Mile representative (despite the insurance ruling) when he picked up the child for special outings.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped

And lets be fair - If Paterno and Curley had reason to keep kids away from Sandusky in 98, Lauro as the trained professional had even more reason, and yet he never notified the Second Mile as he was legally obligated to do. Sandusky in the Lasch building was only a problem if he had access to victims to bring with him. Plus, as he was still employed as a coach until the end of the following season, so banning him outright from his office was not much of an option until after his retirement.

I think this is a good point. Prior to this coming out, I had no idea what "grooming" was, in a pedophillic context.

That brings up another related thought. We are discussing the October meeting with Ganter - if Gricar felt he had to push somebody to get treatment for Sandusky, why not meet with the Second Mile? They had much more to lose if their founder was charged with sexually abusing children, and Sandusky was acting in his capacity as a Second Mile representative (despite the insurance ruling) when he picked up the child for special outings.

The answer might be, because this was Penn State and Sandusky was employed there at the time. TSM was never a big power broker like PSU. Probably half the county electorate had some direct or indirect tie to PSU. Any blow back would have hit Penn State squarely.

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped



I think this is a good point. Prior to this coming out, I had no idea what "grooming" was, in a pedophillic context.



The answer might be, because this was Penn State and Sandusky was employed there at the time. TSM was never a big power broker like PSU. Probably half the county electorate had some direct or indirect tie to PSU. Any blow back would have hit Penn State squarely.

While PSU was more powerful, the University and even the football program would have survived in '98 if Sandusky's actions came out. I believe you had made that point previously as well.

However, an agency for troubled youths could never have recovered from their famous founder being a pedophile that used the organization to select, groom, and abuse their clients. That should have given the DA more leverage to press The Second Mile into taking action. Yet nobody alerted TSM until Curley in 2001, and even then, the behavior was apparently minimized to "horseplay."

Although, as Jamie Sommers has noted, several people in the PSU community apparently had heard rumors about Sandusky for years; it is hard to believe Dr. Raykovitz had never caught wind of this chatter.

Despite what the media would lead us to believe, there were several people in better positions than Paterno to stop Sandusky.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

While PSU was more powerful, the University and even the football program would have survived in '98 if Sandusky's actions came out. I believe you had made that point previously as well.

PSU and PSU football would have survived 1998 but Gricar, politically, could have been another matter. It would have difficult to be seen as the guy who took out the "heir apparent." If it were handled successfully in house, that could have helped out everyone.

However, an agency for troubled youths could never have recovered from their famous founder being a pedophile that used the organization to select, groom, and abuse their clients. That should have given the DA more leverage to press The Second Mile into taking action. Yet nobody alerted TSM until Curley in 2001, and even then, the behavior was apparently minimized to "horseplay."

TSM, however, had virtually no control over Sandusky, in a formal sense. Under their bylaws, he was a permanent member of the board and served on several key committees.

Although, as Jamie Sommers has noted, several people in the PSU community apparently had heard rumors about Sandusky for years; it is hard to believe Dr. Raykovitz had never caught wind of this chatter.

Maybe; I've heard the opposite. Some people, like me, don't believe in rumors, even when well sourced.

Despite what the media would lead us to believe, there were several people in better positions than Paterno to stop Sandusky.

On that point, I agree. Spanier, Schultz, Curley, Lauro, and Gricar come to mind.

 

[BigCat]

That is a good point.

We also know that victims were assaulted in the Sandusky basement, there was an allegation of improper touching at a University pool, and if one believes former assistant coach Booker Brooks, it is common to shower with young children of either gender at the YMCA.

And lets be fair - If Paterno and Curley had reason to keep kids away from Sandusky in 98, Lauro as the trained professional had even more reason, and yet he never notified the Second Mile as he was legally obligated to do. Sandusky in the Lasch building was only a problem if he had access to victims to bring with him. Plus, as he was still employed as a coach until the end of the following season, so banning him outright from his office was not much of an option until after his retirement.

Gricar and Lauro failed; no one is arguing otherwise. In fairness to them, however, they didn't have the option to ban him from the Lasch building. The only option available to them was a legal one.

And, yes, Curley and Paterno easily could have barred him from the building. Nothing makes the national sports media roll there eyes more than the argument from JoePa loyalists that he didn't have the power to make that happen. What was Sandusky going to do if Paterno told him to no longer enter the building? Get an ACLU attorney and take Paterno and PSU to court? There was no way that was going to happen, even if the man wasn't a pedophile.

Curely and Paterno made a colossal mistake that's going to cost Penn State University millions and millions of dollars.

That brings up another related thought. We are discussing the October meeting with Ganter - if Gricar felt he had to push somebody to get treatment for Sandusky, why not meet with the Second Mile? They had much more to lose if their founder was charged with sexually abusing children, and Sandusky was acting in his capacity as a Second Mile representative (despite the insurance ruling) when he picked up the child for special outings.

To me, this scandal is all about who are the insiders and who are the outsiders. Raykovtiz is an outsider. Local law enforcement and Ganter are insiders attempting to handle a situation involving another insider (Sandusky is the ultimate insider. He had recently received a "golden parachute"). Lauro, an outsider, is conspicious in his absence from the October meeting.

JMO

 

[Rlaub44]

Gricar and Lauro failed; no one is arguing otherwise. In fairness to them, however, they didn't have the option to ban him from the Lasch building.

In my opinion, that is the wrong way to look at this. Sandusky being in the Lasch Building makes no difference if he isn't bringing kids in to molest. Even banned from Lasch, he would have certainly continued his activities. Perhaps it wouldn't have been PSU's problem, but then you would have people arguing that this was like the Catholic Church, where they just reassigned him to make the situation somebody else's problem.

And, yes, Curley and Paterno easily could have barred him from the building. Nothing makes the national sports media roll there eyes more than the argument from JoePa loyalists that he didn't have the power to make that happen. What was Sandusky going to do if Paterno told him to no longer enter the building? Get an ACLU attorney and take Paterno and PSU to court? There was no way that was going to happen, even if the man wasn't a pedophile.

Sandusky was still an assistant coach, and his job required him to use the football facilities. They first would have had to fire him, on the basis that he had been investigated and cleared, which would have been a very difficult position to justify. Certainly they could have, but as I have argued before, maybe they believed the word of the police, DPW, and DA that this was not a criminal act, but just poor judgement.

In 1998, it made sense to give him the benefit of the doubt. In 2013, we now know that there was a whole lot more to the story, but we can't now pretend that Paterno and Curley knew what we know, or that they knew more than Gricar, Lauro, and the rest, who basically decided no punishment was warranted.

Curely and Paterno made a colossal mistake that's going to cost Penn State University millions and millions of dollars.

Perhaps, but I still think they had no reason to suspect the experts were wrong until 2001. After McQueary's report is when they had to admit Sandusky had a problem, and when somebody should have reported him.

To me, this scandal is all about who are the insiders and who are the outsiders. Raykovtiz is an outsider. Local law enforcement and Ganter are insiders attempting to handle a situation involving another insider (Sandusky is the ultimate insider. He had recently received a "golden parachute"). Lauro, an outsider, is conspicious in his absence from the October meeting.

JMO

Once Lauro closed his investigation and determined the matter was "unfounded", he has no ability to be involved unless a new report of suspected abuse is made, or if the child's case was accepted under General Protective Services, which allows CYS to follow-up and coordinate services for children in cases where Child Protective Services isn't warranted due to no finding of abuse. GPS does not happen often, in my experience.