All things Joe Paterno

[BigCat]

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.

Sandusky's status was dependent upon his association with Penn State. He used that status to "groom" -- basically another word for "seduce" -- boys. In 98 and 99, Sandusky was "wining and dining" boys in Texas and Florida, thanks to his position as the defensive coordinator at Penn State. Without that association, he was reduced to the status of a creepy old man who was driving out to Clinton County to find prey. Correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to recall that he was still using the promise of attending PSU football games as a reason to continue contact with victim 1. He's a rather pathetic figure by 2008.

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.

People get fired for a lot less all the time. As you suggest, at the very least, he displayed very poor judgement. I'm sure he would have simply resigned rather than force Penn State to fire him.

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.

Gricar and Lauro decided no criminal charges are warranted, which is not to say they didn't believe that some form of punishment, probation, and/or treatment was merited. They may have even believed termination was warranted, but they did not have that option. Again, we don't know what the October meeting was about for certain, perhaps Gricar did issue a warning.

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.

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.

You might be right on that one. In fairness to the experts, however, no one came to them and said they witnessed a child being sexually assaulted.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

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.

Regarding 1998, I disagree. If what has been reported so far has been correct and complete, Curley and Paterno knew that:

A. Some incident happened.

B. The incident was not child abuse nor was it illegal.

Now, was there additional contact between the DA's Office and PSU regarding Sandusky? Honestly, I think it is possible, maybe even probable, but there is no public evidence of it yet.

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

I think that goes back to 1998 and the 10/13/98 meeting, or some other contact. Sloane is around, and in a position to be compelled to talk.

Was the plan in 1998 to handle it in house? That is a real possibility. And Rlaub, it is not a question if Curley and Paterno knew more that Lauro, Gricar or the rest. It is a question on if they were told more, especially by Gricar or the rest (Lauro was out of it by that point, and it would be hard to tell the difference).

 

[Rlaub44]

Sandusky's status was dependent upon his association with Penn State. He used that status to "groom" -- basically another word for "seduce" -- boys. In 98 and 99, Sandusky was "wining and dining" boys in Texas and Florida, thanks to his position as the defensive coordinator at Penn State. Without that association, he was reduced to the status of a creepy old man who was driving out to Clinton County to find prey. Correct me if I'm wrong, I seem to recall that he was still using the promise of attending PSU football games as a reason to continue contact with victim 1. He's a rather pathetic figure by 2008.

His status was dependent on his association with PSU; his access to victims was dependent on his association with TSM. Remember that the staff at Central Mountain didn't disbelieve Jerry would do that to AF because he was a famous defensive coordinator; they couldn't believe it because he was seen as a humanitarian due to his lifetime of work "helping" needy youths.

I agree about his pathetic stature, clinging to his past glory to impress and groom vulnerable boys and their families.

People get fired for a lot less all the time. As you suggest, at the very least, he displayed very poor judgement. I'm sure he would have simply resigned rather than force Penn State to fire him.

BBM - It does happen, but that's not to say that everyone who is accused of poor judgment and boundary issues gets fired. If nothing else had ever happened with Sandusky and a child, it would likely have been seen as a false accusation, or a mistaken interpretation.

If you recall, the victim in 98 denied that anything sexual happened, and Seasock, whose report was somehow given precedence over Chambers' report, opined that Sandusky showed no signs of grooming or being a predator. Again, we now know how wrong he was, but to say that Paterno and Curley should have, versus could have, fired Sandusky at the time, I believe is hindsight at work.

Gricar and Lauro decided no criminal charges are warranted, which is not to say they didn't believe that some form of punishment, probation, and/or treatment was merited. They may have even believed termination was warranted, but they did not have that option. Again, we don't know what the October meeting was about for certain, perhaps Gricar did issue a warning.

If they truly believed some punishment or treatment was merited, why didn't they suggest it to Sandusky? If Gricar did offer a warning in October, I would argue that it was misdirected.

And if Lauro believed there was any behavior that met the criteria for sexual abuse, he could have at the very least deemed the report indicated, meaning that there was evidence that something happened, but couldn't be proven to a level commensurate with a founded report. His purpose wasn't to punish Sandusky, it was to safeguard the welfare of the child (and other children) linked to Sandusky. If he believed there was anything to be concerned about, he had the absolute obligation to notify TSM not to place children in that position with Sandusky again.

Also, much has been noted about Paterno's handwritten note on Sandusky's retirement plan indicating (paraphrase) "no access to Lasch Building for 2nd Mile kids - liability concerns." My continuing argument is that allowing Sandusky on the premises was not the major concern, it should have been to prevent him from bringing children (and potential victims of his "poor judgement") with him.

You might be right on that one. In fairness to the experts, however, no one came to them and said they witnessed a child being sexually assaulted.

And until 2001, nobody came to Paterno, Curley, Schultz or Spanier and said they witnessed a child being sexually assaulted. Even then, there is some debate about what McQueary actually said at the time, although nobody could argue that, after 1998, any allegations should have alerted PSU admins that they needed to report immediately.

 

[Rlaub44]

Regarding 1998, I disagree. If what has been reported so far has been correct and complete, Curley and Paterno knew that:

A. Some incident happened.

B. The incident was not child abuse nor was it illegal.

Now, was there additional contact between the DA's Office and PSU regarding Sandusky? Honestly, I think it is possible, maybe even probable, but there is no public evidence of it yet.



I think that goes back to 1998 and the 10/13/98 meeting, or some other contact. Sloane is around, and in a position to be compelled to talk.

Was the plan in 1998 to handle it in house? That is a real possibility. And Rlaub, it is not a question if Curley and Paterno knew more that Lauro, Gricar or the rest. It is a question on if they were told more, especially by Gricar or the rest (Lauro was out of it by that point, and it would be hard to tell the difference).

Bolded respectfully:

And until we know, I don't want to assume facts not in evidence, and suggest that they were told more. We only have Ganter's name linked to the October meeting so far, so we are making the following leaps:

1. That the October meeting was regarding Sandusky.

2. That there was a message delivered to Paterno and Curley about consequences for Sandusky based on that meeting.

3. That the information shared with Paterno and Curley was somehow more concerning than that used by Lauro in determining the outcome of the abuse investigation.

Once we know more, I will be in a better position to criticize Paterno & Curley's actions in 1998.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Bolded respectfully:

And until we know, I don't want to assume facts not in evidence, and suggest that they were told more. We only have Ganter's name linked to the October meeting so far, so we are making the following leaps:

1. That the October meeting was regarding Sandusky.

2. That there was a message delivered to Paterno and Curley about consequences for Sandusky based on that meeting.

3. That the information shared with Paterno and Curley was somehow more concerning than that used by Lauro in determining the outcome of the abuse investigation.

Once we know more, I will be in a better position to criticize Paterno & Curley's actions in 1998.

That is why the "if" is in there. Ganter may have been a witness.

I would not limit that to Paterno or Curley; Spanier is a possibility.

Lauro's standard of evidence is different than what LE would use. 1998 might be the key point in the upcoming trials. The amount of paper that the Spanier presentment used in describing it is telling.

 

[Rlaub44]

That is why the "if" is in there. Ganter may have been a witness.

I would not limit that to Paterno or Curley; Spanier is a possibility.

Spanier is a possibility. I only used the two names because they were the ones Big Cat originally mentioned in asking if they would trust their grandchildren in a shower with Sandusky.

Lauro's standard of evidence is different than what LE would use.

Lauro's standard is lower than what LE would require, as elements of child abuse do not need to meet criminal definitions. My feeling is that if Lauro couldn't even classify the report as indicated, I'm not sure what Gricar could have shared in October that should have prompted Penn State to fire and ban Sandusky, as Big Cat suggested was a possibility.

And if Gricar had learned more since the original investigation had closed, it would have been incumbent on LE to reopen a case through ChildLine, especially if they still didn't feel they had enough to pursue charges.

Unless specifically requested by Penn State, it would be extremely unfair for the legal system to dump the whole mess in the University's lap. And while that is a possibility, as yet we have seen no evidence to consider it anything but wild speculation.

1998 might be the key point in the upcoming trials. The amount of paper that the Spanier presentment used in describing it is telling.

I wonder if 1998 isn't important strictly to frame the background knowledge that Penn State was supposed to have had when they chose not to report in 2001. My guess is that they have to try and show that prior knowledge to nail the administrators for lying to the GJ, as well as demonstrating that they should have known this was a pattern of behavior that couldn't be ignored.

 

[Reader]

What if Ganter was the one who asked for the meeting in 10/98 because he had learned of the investigation and wanted to report some information he had about Sandusky?

 

[Rlaub44]

What if Ganter was the one who asked for the meeting in 10/98 because he had learned of the investigation and wanted to report some information he had about Sandusky?

Definitely possible. Apparently, whatever he shared (if that happened) was not enough to change Gricar's mind on charges, nor enough to make a new report to ChildLine.

I would just love to know one way or the other, if the meeting was about Sandusky or not.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I'm not sure that the Seasock report was given precedence over the Chambers report. Lauro said he never saw the Chambers report and neither was admissible.

 

[Rlaub44]

I'm not sure that the Seasock report was given precedence over the Chambers report. Lauro said he never saw the Chambers report and neither was admissible.

If Lauro truly didn't ask Chambers, the initial reporter, for her input, that is his failing, along with not following through with his first plan to interview Sandusky on May 7th.

His performance in this case definitely raises some questions.

 

[Reader]

If Lauro truly didn't ask Chambers, the initial reporter, for her input, that is his failing, along with not following through with his first plan to interview Sandusky on May 7th.

His performance in this case definitely raises some questions.

IIRC from the timeline I posted earlier, Lauro didn't even interview the CHILD, who is always your first source of information!

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If Lauro truly didn't ask Chambers, the initial reporter, for her input, that is his failing, along with not following through with his first plan to interview Sandusky on May 7th.

His performance in this case definitely raises some questions.

Keep in mind, neither report was admissible in court, as to the conclusions, but DPW could use it in their determination.

Lauro obviously knew that Chambers had reported, because he handed her telephone report information to Schreffler. He apparently never asked questioned her.

I'm not sure if Lauro:

1. Ever interviewed Victim 6 (as per Reader). It is not in the abridged police report, but it might have occurred between 5/13 and 6/1.

2. If he ever saw the Seasock Report.

3. There is no suggestion that he ever checked the credentials of either.

Lauro claimed that he never saw the Chambers Report (I believe him, for some of the reasons previously stated).

These reports were almost useless to Gricar in prosecuting Sandusky, but they could have been used by Lauro.

[On the third point, I can easily see this being a standard screw up. In the Income Maintenance branch, we required disability certification to be either by an MD (medical doctor) or a DO (doctor of osteopathy), but not by chiropractor, a DC. I can vividly remember getting one case at a new district and seeing the form signed by a DC. I checked the file and found about three years worth of these forms signed by a DC. No other worker, nor their supervisor, caught it. ]

 

[BigCat]

Bolded respectfully:

And until we know, I don't want to assume facts not in evidence, and suggest that they were told more. We only have Ganter's name linked to the October meeting so far, so we are making the following leaps:

1. That the October meeting was regarding Sandusky.

2. That there was a message delivered to Paterno and Curley about consequences for Sandusky based on that meeting.

3. That the information shared with Paterno and Curley was somehow more concerning than that used by Lauro in determining the outcome of the abuse investigation.

Once we know more, I will be in a better position to criticize Paterno & Curley's actions in 1998.

What actions? They did nothing.

Per the Freeh report:

"The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's."

-----------------------------------------------------------

"At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the entire football staff in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the Lasch Building,"

 

[J. J. in Phila]

What actions? They did nothing.

Per the Freeh report:

"The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just steps away from Mr. Paterno's."

Quote underlined by me, to preserve the context.

I have to disagree with Freeh's characterization that Paterno "followed it closely," based on the evidence presented.

Assuming that Curley was accurate in those e-mails (and I do think it is fairly clear that Curley was referring to Paterno), it was 3rd to 4th hand.

Schreffler told Harmon, Harmon told Schultz, Schultz told Curley, and Curley (presumably) told Paterno. It is clear that what Schultz told Curley was greatly abridged from Schreffler was finding out.

Now, where their additional contacts between PSU and the DA's Office that involved Paterno. Maybe, but there is no evidence presented.

 

[Rlaub44]

What actions? They did nothing.

Per the Freeh report:

Sorry for any confusion - I was speaking regarding the possibility that there were the additional contacts between the DA and PSU staff that some were speculating about.

As JJ mentioned, Paterno was apparently notified that there was an investigation, but we have no idea what, if any, details were shared, and if all they learned was that DPW and the DA both closed the case, I can't fault the PSU staff for not taking further action in 1998.

Now 2001 was another matter, and if it turns out that there were additional contacts with Gricar, and possibly more allegations learned, I may feel differently about 98.

I agree with JJ that unless there is more information that we haven't seen, Freeh definitely overstated Paterno's role in 1998. Of course, IMO, I believe he also overstated Paterno's role in 2001 as well.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I was looking at the Freeh Report and I may have discovered something, that even Ganim missed.

In dealing with the 1998 incident, it says, "The prosecutor assigned to the Sandusky cased declined to be interviewed by the Special Investigative Counsel." (p. 46)

It does not say that Karen Arnold declined to be interviewed. It mentions Arnold by name on p. 43.

Could there be another prosecutor (Sloan?) that was assigned to the case and not Arnold?

 

[BigCat]

Sorry for any confusion - I was speaking regarding the possibility that there were the additional contacts between the DA and PSU staff that some were speculating about.

As JJ mentioned, Paterno was apparently notified that there was an investigation, but we have no idea what, if any, details were shared, and if all they learned was that DPW and the DA both closed the case, I can't fault the PSU staff for not taking further action in 1998.

Now 2001 was another matter, and if it turns out that there were additional contacts with Gricar, and possibly more allegations learned, I may feel differently about 98.

I agree with JJ that unless there is more information that we haven't seen, Freeh definitely overstated Paterno's role in 1998. Of course, IMO, I believe he also overstated Paterno's role in 2001 as well.

In my eyes, Freeh wasn't particularly harsh on Paterno. His primary charge was that Paterno showed no concern for Sandusky's victims.

 

[Rlaub44]

In my eyes, Freeh wasn't particularly harsh on Paterno. His primary charge was that Paterno showed no concern for Sandusky's victims.

You and I had a very different takeaway from the Freeh Report. I felt Freeh's primary charge was to place Paterno at the front of the 2001 cover-up, by focusing on interviewees who portrayed Curley as a weak AD who was no more than Paterno's errand boy, then linking that with the "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe..." email to make the case that Paterno directed Curley not to report.

If you think I was the only one reading it that way, all you'd need to do is review media articles when the emails were first leaked, and after the Freeh report was released.
Check the headlines of the articles I link below:
http://deadspin.com/5922559/did-joe...als-from-contacting-child-welfare-authorities
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...erry-sandusky-emails-reveal-article-1.1105285
http://www.examiner.com/article/emails-show-joe-paterno-behind-jerry-sandusky-cover-up

We still don't know what was said between Paterno and Curley, but Freeh decided he knew enough, and laid the blame at the feet of Paterno.

Recent comments make it appear Freeh continues to try to damage Paterno's reputation, and being less-than-truthful along the way. He is now changing his tune about Paterno's cooperation with the Freeh Committee. From the Freeh report: "Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating, but died before he could be interviewed."

In his press conference when the report was released:
"Mr. Paterno passed away before we had the opportunity to speak with him ... We believe that he was willing to speak with us and would have done so, but for his serious, deteriorating health."

Now read what Freeh said after the Paterno family released their report:
"During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us."

I understand that Freeh was probably feeling defensive over the critique of his efforts, but the third statement is so completely opposite of the first two, it makes me question Freeh's motives.

 

[BigCat]

You and I had a very different takeaway from the Freeh Report. I felt Freeh's primary charge was to place Paterno at the front of the 2001 cover-up, by focusing on interviewees who portrayed Curley as a weak AD who was no more than Paterno's errand boy, then linking that with the "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe..." email to make the case that Paterno directed Curley not to report.

If you think I was the only one reading it that way, all you'd need to do is review media articles when the emails were first leaked, and after the Freeh report was released.
Check the headlines of the articles I link below:
http://deadspin.com/5922559/did-joe...als-from-contacting-child-welfare-authorities
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...erry-sandusky-emails-reveal-article-1.1105285
http://www.examiner.com/article/emails-show-joe-paterno-behind-jerry-sandusky-cover-up

We still don't know what was said between Paterno and Curley, but Freeh decided he knew enough, and laid the blame at the feet of Paterno.

Recent comments make it appear Freeh continues to try to damage Paterno's reputation, and being less-than-truthful along the way. He is now changing his tune about Paterno's cooperation with the Freeh Committee. From the Freeh report: "Through his counsel, Paterno expressed interest in participating, but died before he could be interviewed."

In his press conference when the report was released:
"Mr. Paterno passed away before we had the opportunity to speak with him ... We believe that he was willing to speak with us and would have done so, but for his serious, deteriorating health."

Now read what Freeh said after the Paterno family released their report:
"During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us."

I understand that Freeh was probably feeling defensive over the critique of his efforts, but the second statement is so completely opposite of the first, it makes me question Freeh's motives.

In fairness to Freeh, he didn't write the headlines. And I doubt he leaked the e-mails either. Anthony Lubrano was discussing the info contained in the e-mails a week prior to the CNN story.

Freeh never stated that Paterno directed Curley not to report. Instead, he presented the following evidence:

* He cited Paterno's own words to McQueary: "You did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do."

* He made the case that Curley was Paterno's flunkie, including a quote from a senior administrator at the univesity who called Curley an "errand boy."

* He presented the email from Curley in which he suggested a change in plan: they would not report the allegation to an outside agency. Curley made the decision after he discussed the situation with Paterno.

Some people have concluded from the evidence presented that Paterno directed Curley not to report; others that Paterno influenced Curley; and some are agnostic on the issue. I don't believe, however, Freeh has ever stated a strong opinion either way.

What Freeh is emphatic about is that Paterno never demonstrated any concern for Sandusky's victims. Not even the Paterno family seems to dispute that point.

 

[Rlaub44]

Freeh never stated that Paterno directed Curley not to report. Instead, he presented the following evidence:

* He cited Paterno's own words to McQueary: "You did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do."

* He made the case that Curley was Paterno's flunkie, including a quote from a senior administrator at the univesity who called Curley an "errand boy."

* He presented the email from Curley in which he suggested a change in plan: they would not report the allegation to an outside agency. Curley made the decision after he discussed the situation with Paterno.

Some people have concluded from the evidence presented that Paterno directed Curley not to report; others that Paterno influenced Curley; and some are agnostic on the issue. I don't believe, however, Freeh has ever stated a strong opinion either way.

Freeh's opinion comes through in what he says and what he doesn't. As you said, he stuck quotes in about how Curley was Paterno's errand boy, how Paterno "knew everything" that went on around the football program, how the only intervening factor between the plan to report and the decision not to was Curley's conversation.

It would have been easy to also point out that we don't know what advice Paterno gave Curley, or whether Curley heeded it. He could have stressed how Curley never said "Joe thinks" or "Joe wants", pinning the change on Curley. Instead, Freeh tucked in the "errand boy" comments, at that location in the report. Just presenting evidence, or making the connections for us?

He also, in his reply to the Paterno's family report, stated:Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case.

We have already pointed out that there is little to no evidence that Paterno was ever more than simply briefed that Sandusky was being investigated. Even the police and DA didn't believe in 98 that Sandusky was a pedophile, but Freeh outright claims that Paterno should have, for 13 years, which prior to his death, would have been 98.

Notice that Freeh says he "was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse" - did he mention in that sentence that Sandusky was cleared of all criminal charges and abuse allegations as a result of that investigation? No, because that would be fair and balanced, and wouldn't support the conclusions he is trying to make.

And how about this comment from his response:As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials.

Did you see the documentation where Paterno emailed the other three to discuss their agreement not to report? Or the meeting that he attended with the others? Me neither, but Freeh states this "agreement" as a fact, leading others to accept it despite the lack of evidence. While one can believe Paterno went along with a plan, others can believe that he left the decision up to the other three. Why are Freeh's conclusions more valid than ours, unless he withheld evidence from his Report?