All things Joe Paterno

[Reader]

Just a note: I'm gradually reading the new reports on Paterno and they are all very long. I would like to hear others' opinions of them also. Completed Dr. Berlin's report and here is my conclusion:


Dr. Berlin just seems to be saying Paterno is such a great guy he would never harm a child or knowingly let someone else harm a child, just because he was so moral and upstanding...and Freeh never had proof of their conclusions about Paterno being part of a cover up, but neither does he offer proof that it didn't happen...just an assessment that Paterno would not do that based on his good character. There are really no supporting facts given....it seems he must have gotten most of his information from the family or friends of Paterno. IMO....

 

[JaimeSommers]

Jay Paterno making the ESPN rounds today -- first Mike 'n Mike and now the Herd.

 

[JaimeSommers]

Hey, you don't write a blog touching on it.

If I could, I would. So many stories not being told here in Peyton Place.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Dr. Berlin just seems to be saying Paterno is such a great guy he would never harm a child or knowingly let someone else harm a child, just because he was so moral and upstanding...and Freeh never had proof of their conclusions about Paterno being part of a cover up, but neither does he offer proof that it didn't happen...just an assessment that Paterno would not do that based on his good character. There are really no supporting facts given....it seems he must have gotten most of his information from the family or friends of Paterno. IMO....

I watched the interview. It is basically character witnesses, the **Joe wouldn't do that** type of thing.

To be fair, the Paternos did a lot for Penn State; Joe had a lot of good deeds. That still doesn't change what he did or didn't do in 2001.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Zero national news coverage on Sue Paterno. The story was the papal resignation (and a courthouse shooting in Wilmington, DE in the Philadelphia media market).

 

[Twindad]

There is some good information regarding pedophiles, however it seems to be brought in such a way as to lead you to the conclusion there was no way Paterno could have even been suspicious. The Clement statement "Sandusky is a skilled and masterful manipulator, and in my expert opinion, he is in the top one percent of effective “groomers.”5. Penn State always produces the best! I don't believe the Freeh report was really meant to do more than deflect judgement away from the BOT. I think it was flawed, but how accurate could it be given key participants were unable or unwilling to give testimony. I think it reads like a well organized copy/paste of most articles I've read.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

There is some good information regarding pedophiles, however it seems to be brought in such a way as to lead you to the conclusion there was no way Paterno could have even been suspicious. The Clement statement "Sandusky is a skilled and masterful manipulator, and in my expert opinion, he is in the top one percent of effective “groomers.”5. Penn State always produces the best! I don't believe the Freeh report was really meant to do more than deflect judgement away from the BOT. I think it was flawed, but how accurate could it be given key participants were unable or unwilling to give testimony. I think it reads like a well organized copy/paste of most articles I've read.

I think it did hit the BoT as well, and they have structural problems.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Just a note: I'm gradually reading the new reports on Paterno and they are all very long. I would like to hear others' opinions of them also. Completed Dr. Berlin's report and here is my conclusion:


Dr. Berlin just seems to be saying Paterno is such a great guy he would never harm a child or knowingly let someone else harm a child, just because he was so moral and upstanding...and Freeh never had proof of their conclusions about Paterno being part of a cover up, but neither does he offer proof that it didn't happen...just an assessment that Paterno would not do that based on his good character. There are really no supporting facts given....it seems he must have gotten most of his information from the family or friends of Paterno. IMO....

I had the same impression of Berlin's piece. I don't think he added much to the conversation. He may have gotton his information from family and friends, but could also have gotton it from the many pre-scandal, pro-Paterno media reports out there.

 

[nittanylioness234]

More Paterno bio excerpts reveal rift between coach, Sandusky

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-excerpts-reveal-rift-between-coach-sandusky/


"On the Freeh report:


The general media takeaway from this email chain [discussing how Penn State officials should handle McQueary's testimony] was that Paterno had convinced [athletic director Tim] Curley to back off reporting Sandusky and to handle this in-house. Others familiar with the emails believed instead that Paterno had demanded they confront Sandusky.

The email in question, according to the Freeh report, comes just weeks after Sandusky molested Victim 2. “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,” the email reads.

The report also indicates Curley, former president Graham Spanier and former VP Gary Schultz were prepared to execute an action plan after hearing about the Sandusky allegation. The plan included informing the board chairman of Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, child welfare services, and to speak with Sandusky. After Curley speaks with Paterno in late February, 2001, the plan changes."


This is one of the things I found interesting in the Clemente section. He suggests, based on Schultz's notes and the emails, that Curley didn't drop the part about notifying DPW, but that "after talking it over with Joe," he decided to ADD the part about confronting Sandusky with what they knew, rather than just to tell him not to shower with children at PSU any more, just as Posnanski suggests. If Clemente's (and Posnanski's) interpretation is true, it takes something away from the "cover-up" allegations.

Additionally, Clemente's description of how a person like Sandusky not only seduces a child, but seduces the adults around the child, and sometimes, like with Sandusky, the entire community, was quite compelling and absolutely chilling. In my opinion, it was the best part of the entire report - and the email discussion, as well.

 

[Reader]

More Paterno bio excerpts reveal rift between coach, Sandusky

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...-excerpts-reveal-rift-between-coach-sandusky/


"On the Freeh report:


The general media takeaway from this email chain [discussing how Penn State officials should handle McQueary's testimony] was that Paterno had convinced [athletic director Tim] Curley to back off reporting Sandusky and to handle this in-house. Others familiar with the emails believed instead that Paterno had demanded they confront Sandusky.

The email in question, according to the Freeh report, comes just weeks after Sandusky molested Victim 2. “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps,” the email reads.

The report also indicates Curley, former president Graham Spanier and former VP Gary Schultz were prepared to execute an action plan after hearing about the Sandusky allegation. The plan included informing the board chairman of Sandusky’s charity, The Second Mile, child welfare services, and to speak with Sandusky. After Curley speaks with Paterno in late February, 2001, the plan changes."


This is one of the things I found interesting in the Clemente section. He suggests, based on Schultz's notes and the emails, that Curley didn't drop the part about notifying DPW, but that "after talking it over with Joe," he decided to ADD the part about confronting Sandusky with what they knew, rather than just to tell him not to shower with children at PSU any more. If Clemente's interpretation is true, it takes something away from the "cover-up" allegations.

I would almost agree with that interpretation, if they HAD reported it, however since no report was made that kind of puts a dent in this version.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I would almost agree with that interpretation, if they HAD reported it, however since no report was made that kind of puts a dent in this version.

On the 2001 e-mail, I will agree that it does not show that Paterno "masterminded" a coverup or even advocated it.

Paterno, however, was part of the chain of witnesses to what McQueary reported. Paterno had to know that if there was a investigation, LE or DPW would have to talk with him, if just to confirm with what McQueary had told him.

Paterno had to have realized that no one from LE/DPW talked with him.

 

[Reader]

On Clemente report, these are IMO:

1998
It is not only up to the DA or LE to handle a situation like this. The school also with their knowledge had a responsibility to take action, along with DPW/CYS as Clemente states. The fact none of these organizations took the actions indicated and required to prevent further abuses by JS is equally shared IMO. That one did not take action still does not excuse another of blame. The school during 1998 had more direct authority over JS since he was still employed there and under Paterno's and Curley's supervision. Any supervisor knows that if an employee has been investigated for acting inappropriately with a minor, especially on school grounds, they need to be admonished and warned about their behavior and this needs to be followed up on. PSU decided since the DA did not file charges they could just forget about it.

2001
This is a real stretch and ignorance on Paterno's part [about sexual abuse] is not believeable to me. Possibly in 1998 but not when it happened again in 2001 and he heard directly from McQueary about what he saw...even if not in the sexual detail given later, he knew enough to know that something awful had happened with the child and that both JS and the child were naked at night in the shower doing something more than horsing around. For reasons of his own which we will never understand he decided not to do anything about it and just leave it up to his superiors. To me, that conflicts with the moral standards he was known for and shows a lack of caring and concern for this child and the other children he knew JS was associating with at the 2nd Mile.

My question is why are these people who obviously know what the law requires and what they should do, having all these discussions about all these 'conditions' of if and when they will do it? If there was no conspiracy to conceal, why was the incident not reported in the end? If Paterno was not part of the conspiracy why did he not report it on his own? And if he had really wanted it reported, I fully believe the others would have done it.

There was a reason it was not reported and negative publicity was a part of it (to me) but I think it was more than football. It was knowing they did not follow up with JS in 1998 with restrictions, and the public finding out that JS had still been allowed to bring his victims to the football facilities. Since 2011
this has been a major reason Paterno and the others have faced public condemnation. They knew in 1998 and 2001 and did nothing to stop JS.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I will disagree slightly with 1998. Technically, those reports were confidential and the Athletic Department would not have access. I'm not convinced that either Curley or Paterno had the details, only that there was an investigation, which ended with no charges being filed and an "unfounded" finding by DPW (who really dropped the ball).

That said, there should have been a red flag raised when the 2001 incident was reported.

 

[StellarsJay]

Parts of the Clemente report, especially the sequence on McQueary's communication, are very intersting.

 

[Reader]

I will disagree slightly with 1998. Technically, those reports were confidential and the Athletic Department would not have access. I'm not convinced that either Curley or Paterno had the details, only that there was an investigation, which ended with no charges being filed and an "unfounded" finding by DPW (who really dropped the ball).

That said, there should have been a red flag raised when the 2001 incident was reported.

Even if the actual police reports were confidential and Paterno did not have the details, he did know at least that an investigation was done about something JS did with a child at the school. As the direct supervisor of that person this would be a situation you needed to discuss with them about appropriate behavior. And since Schultz was in charge of the campus police, he certainly could ask him about it. A responsible supervisor in the situation would want to find out more and handle it as needed. This is normal personnel procedure in most organizations. Anytime an employee is investigated by LE you have the right to find out what it is and discuss it with them. If the report is confidential, they can sign a release of the information.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Even if the actual police reports were confidential and Paterno did not have the details, he did know at least that an investigation was done about something JS did with a child at the school.

On that point I agree with completely.

As the direct supervisor of that person this would be a situation you needed to discuss with them about appropriate behavior.

Paterno possibly did not know the details and was told that there was no problem after the investigation. The 10/13/98 meeting might eliminate that possibility.

And since Schultz was in charge of the campus police, he certainly could ask him about it. A responsible supervisor in the situation would want to find out more and handle it as needed. This is normal personnel procedure in most organizations. Anytime an employee is investigated by LE you have the right to find out what it is and discuss it with them. If the report is confidential, they can sign a release of the information.

Sandusky might not have done that, in regard to Paterno/Curley. Schultz is another matter. Further, it might have been Curley handling it.

That does not exonerate Paterno, if we find out more.

 

[JaimeSommers]

Bravo.

On Clemente report, these are IMO:

1998
It is not only up to the DA or LE to handle a situation like this. The school also with their knowledge had a responsibility to take action, along with DPW/CYS as Clemente states. The fact none of these organizations took the actions indicated and required to prevent further abuses by JS is equally shared IMO. That one did not take action still does not excuse another of blame. The school during 1998 had more direct authority over JS since he was still employed there and under Paterno's and Curley's supervision. Any supervisor knows that if an employee has been investigated for acting inappropriately with a minor, especially on school grounds, they need to be admonished and warned about their behavior and this needs to be followed up on. PSU decided since the DA did not file charges they could just forget about it.

2001
This is a real stretch and ignorance on Paterno's part [about sexual abuse] is not believeable to me. Possibly in 1998 but not when it happened again in 2001 and he heard directly from McQueary about what he saw...even if not in the sexual detail given later, he knew enough to know that something awful had happened with the child and that both JS and the child were naked at night in the shower doing something more than horsing around. For reasons of his own which we will never understand he decided not to do anything about it and just leave it up to his superiors. To me, that conflicts with the moral standards he was known for and shows a lack of caring and concern for this child and the other children he knew JS was associating with at the 2nd Mile.

My question is why are these people who obviously know what the law requires and what they should do, having all these discussions about all these 'conditions' of if and when they will do it? If there was no conspiracy to conceal, why was the incident not reported in the end? If Paterno was not part of the conspiracy why did he not report it on his own? And if he had really wanted it reported, I fully believe the others would have done it.

There was a reason it was not reported and negative publicity was a part of it (to me) but I think it was more than football. It was knowing they did not follow up with JS in 1998 with restrictions, and the public finding out that JS had still been allowed to bring his victims to the football facilities. Since 2011
this has been a major reason Paterno and the others have faced public condemnation. They knew in 1998 and 2001 and did nothing to stop JS.

 

[Reader]

Parts of the Clemente report, especially the sequence on McQueary's communication, are very intersting.

Could you explain a little more about what you found interesting? TIA.....

 

[Twindad]

I found it curious there was no mention of the report by Alycia Chambers where she said Sandusky exhibited grooming behavior.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I found it curious there was no mention of the report by Alycia Chambers where she said Sandusky exhibited grooming behavior.

1. There is no evidence that Paterno ever saw that report.

2. In a legal context, it was inadmissible in 1998.

That was actually one of the problems in the Freeh Report. Neither Gricar or Sandusky's defense attorney could have used the conclusions in either the Chambers or Seasock Reports as evidence; neither could testify about their conclusions. Gricar could have given it some weight in making up his own mind, but he generally did not give much weight to psychological evidence. Even if he had, Chambers was much better qualified.

DPW could use both reports in its decision. The have a different standard of evidence. According to Lauro, he never saw it.