Jerry Sandusky sentenced to 30-60 years in 2012 *Appeal denied 2023*

[mickey2942]

My husband is a Penn state grad, and he , to this day, states "Joe Pa", knew nothing, and was hoodwinked by Sandusky. So, that is how loyal Penn state alumni are still...

 

[pittsburghgirl]

My husband is a Penn state grad, and he , to this day, states "Joe Pa", knew nothing, and was hoodwinked by Sandusky. So, that is how loyal Penn state alumni are still...

I think Joe Pa did "know nothing," just like the bishops who were "loyal" to the church and their own interests. (I'm a Catholic, so understand I am not bashing the Church; I'm critical of it). We are seeing a generational shift in these matters. Paterno's generation came from a time when no one talked about these things. I'm over 60 and can tell you that until the last 20 years, no one talked about this stuff. The past is the past; all we can do is learn from it. We don't have to throw out all the good Paterno has done because he failed in this regard.

 

[costalpilot]

Paterno knew. Paterno knew everything that went on in happy valley. The King always knows, as long as he wants to know. Then, no one hides anything from him for fear he might find out and blame them for keeping secrets. He was a marine, yet He actually testified that he did not know men could have sex with men. Ha, indeed. As for his family, you can have them. Chips off the old block.

 

[Frigga]

I think Joe Pa did "know nothing," just like the bishops who were "loyal" to the church and their own interests. (I'm a Catholic, so understand I am not bashing the Church; I'm critical of it). We are seeing a generational shift in these matters. Paterno's generation came from a time when no one talked about these things. I'm over 60 and can tell you that until the last 20 years, no one talked about this stuff. The past is the past; all we can do is learn from it. We don't have to throw out all the good Paterno has done because he failed in this regard.

"Because he failed in this regard"? Seriously? I'm more than a little off put by the flippant sound of this remark.

Um yes, sorry, knowing a man is raping young boys- yes, I have a BIG problem with that and quite frankly it's the idea that football or a football team or its winning streak are more important then the minds and bodies destroyed by that pedophile rapist and ANYONE who enabled, supported or turned a blind eye for him.

Joe Paterno deserves nothing but scorn and certainly not accolades- at least on the planet I live on!

 

[pittsburghgirl]

My comment was not flippant. I was not arguing that he didn't know (see the quotation marks around "know nothing.") Nor was I defending Paterno. In my own work, I have been a mandated reporter for my whole career. In the post above, I was not speaking of the horror of child sexual abuse; I was trying to put the Paterno story in some historical context--my point being that Paterno is of the same generation as those who covered up abuse in the church. My post was a response to the one above it, about how PSU alumni and others, are in a similar position of denial about Paterno and PSU as Paterno and the bishops/clergy were about the seriousness of sexual abuse. Like many who refused to believe that priests were molesters or who refused to believe that the church would cover it up, there are those who can believe that Sandusky was a monster but Paterno couldn't possibly have known because they believed he was a great man--a man of greatness-- with a sterling reputation.

My point was that we can must acknowledge that Paterno, like Sandusky with The Second Mile, as well as the bishops involved in covering up clergy sex abuse, often did good things for their communities. We can acknowledge how those "good things" made it harder for the truth to come out. We can acknowledge that complexity without ignoring or trivializing the horror of their active abuse or their failure to protect kids. I was arguing against the "either/or" thinking that keeps people trapped in denial while kids are victimized. Abusers and their enablers are often powerful, charismatic people, at least in the world of the kids they abuse. Their very modus operandi is often to groom kids with attention, gifts, kindness, trips, privileges, all things that make kids feel important and grateful. Then there are the abusers who are beloved parents and grandparents, the very people keeping a roof over a kids' head and food on the table. And the other parent can't square up the loving spouse or engaged grandfather with a pedophile rapist. The type of child sex abuser that uses teaching, coaching, Scouts, the church, or dating a single parent to groom kids is often held in high esteem by the community--and this esteem has, in the past, made it hard to some people to report for fear of not being believed.

Abusing kids in any way leaves horrible scars, as anyone who has experienced abuse can attest. Abusers should be punished and kept away from kids; their enablers can expect to have their sterling reputations in tatters. But just as we can't rewrite history and ignore the abuse, we can't rewrite history and ignore the context that allowed it to happen.

 

[blue22]

I think Joe Pa did "know nothing," just like the bishops who were "loyal" to the church and their own interests. (I'm a Catholic, so understand I am not bashing the Church; I'm critical of it). We are seeing a generational shift in these matters. Paterno's generation came from a time when no one talked about these things. I'm over 60 and can tell you that until the last 20 years, no one talked about this stuff. The past is the past; all we can do is learn from it. We don't have to throw out all the good Paterno has done because he failed in this regard.

Yes, I think we do. When you look the other way. When you use "my generation" excuses. When you hide behind a system. When you put a GAME above and before the safety of children. When you approve by inaction, the abuse of children. When you do nothing while childhoods are being murdered...

You LOSE the benefit and luxury of certain parts of your life being protected. You become what you allowed yourself to be. A pedophile protector. A complicit coward in the murder of childhood innocence and safety. You don't get to hold onto parts of your life that are "good." It doesn't work like that. "Good" doesn't matter anymore. You lost that privilege. You make choice like protecting a pedophile and you lose all else. It IS that black and white. IMO.

** "You" is meant in the general sense.

 

[tangelo]

My comment was not flippant. I was not arguing that he didn't know (see the quotation marks around "know nothing.") Nor was I defending Paterno. In my own work, I have been a mandated reporter for my whole career. In the post above, I was not speaking of the horror of child sexual abuse; I was trying to put the Paterno story in some historical context--my point being that Paterno is of the same generation as those who covered up abuse in the church. My post was a response to the one above it, about how PSU alumni and others, are in a similar position of denial about Paterno and PSU as Paterno and the bishops/clergy were about the seriousness of sexual abuse. Like many who refused to believe that priests were molesters or who refused to believe that the church would cover it up, there are those who can believe that Sandusky was a monster but Paterno couldn't possibly have known because they believed he was a great man--a man of greatness-- with a sterling reputation.

My point was that we can must acknowledge that Paterno, like Sandusky with The Second Mile, as well as the bishops involved in covering up clergy sex abuse, often did good things for their communities. We can acknowledge how those "good things" made it harder for the truth to come out. We can acknowledge that complexity without ignoring or trivializing the horror of their active abuse or their failure to protect kids. I was arguing against the "either/or" thinking that keeps people trapped in denial while kids are victimized. Abusers and their enablers are often powerful, charismatic people, at least in the world of the kids they abuse. Their very modus operandi is often to groom kids with attention, gifts, kindness, trips, privileges, all things that make kids feel important and grateful. Then there are the abusers who are beloved parents and grandparents, the very people keeping a roof over a kids' head and food on the table. And the other parent can't square up the loving spouse or engaged grandfather with a pedophile rapist. The type of child sex abuser that uses teaching, coaching, Scouts, the church, or dating a single parent to groom kids is often held in high esteem by the community--and this esteem has, in the past, made it hard to some people to report for fear of not being believed.

Abusing kids in any way leaves horrible scars, as anyone who has experienced abuse can attest. Abusers should be punished and kept away from kids; their enablers can expect to have their sterling reputations in tatters. But just as we can't rewrite history and ignore the abuse, we can't rewrite history and ignore the context that allowed it to happen.

you defend your assertion that paterno's aiding & abetting a serial rapist of children should be balanced by his unspecified supposed good works by doubling down and claiming sandusky's "good things " for the community somehow offsets his years of raping children and the destroyed lives of his victims.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am willing to reserve judgment on Paterno until we get more information.

 

[Frigga]

^^^ I'm not.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

you defend your assertion that paterno's aiding & abetting a serial rapist of children should be balanced by his unspecified supposed good works by doubling down and claiming sandusky's "good things " for the community somehow offsets his years of raping children and the destroyed lives of his victims.

I never said, anywhere, that we should "balance" child molestation or enabling a molester with other good works. Let me try again: molesters and those who enable or "ignore" them are often seen as people with sterling reputations; in their lives before being exposed, they often did "good works" in the community. That doesn't make them "good people" or "balance" the horror they visit on children. How else do you explain why not only bishops but ordinary parishioners and parents of abused kids refused to accept that priests molested those kids? If child molesters had horns and a tail and a child molester tattoo on their foreheads, things would be a lot simpler. Now I will not entertain any more insinuations or accusations that I "balance" molestation in any way, shape or form. That is not what I am saying. As I said before. You are free to believe that those who have enabled molesters are totally evil creatures who have contributed nothing positive to anyone in their lives. You are free to believe that molesters are simple creatures, easy to identify and hold to account, that they don't build cover for their activities. However, it is inaccurate to say that I claimed Sandusky's so-called charities "offset" child rape. "Balance" and "offset" are not my words. My point was that those who defend Paterno don't have to ignore their previous positive ideas about him to recognize that he failed to protect kids. Because HE SAID THAT HIMSELF BEFORE HE DIED. He did good works. He failed kids. Those are facts. And nowhere did I express my own opinion of Paterno, but here goes:

In the case of Paterno, it is difficult to ignore millions of dollars donated to PSU and his charitable work. I'm not talking about football here; in my view, the football culture at PSU was out of control even before we knew about Sandusky and child rape--a case in point being the conventional notion that JP had more power than the university president. Lots of arrogance there. In the first incarnation of this story, I thought it was ludicrous for JP to claim he did his job by just reporting up the chain of command because in every sense that matters, he was not accountable to those people at all. I would like to see the documentation from the civll cases before reaching a decision in my own mind about what JP knew and when he knew it; I haven't seen said documents, and I don't put much stock in simple media reports, as they are often inaccurate. I have rarely agreed with JJ over the years, but I want to see documentation. The civil cases are likely to yield a lot of interesting stuff, if any of it sees the light of day. I've always wondered what, exactly, triggered Sandusky leaving that plum coaching position when he did. It's certainly a possibility that he was forced out for abusing kids but not exposed and thus free to use Second Mile as a tool to recruit victims. And THAT, for sure, would be turning a blind eye to the rape of kids. That, for sure, would be unforgivable. But then, I tend to want to see documents, data, proof before I reach my conclusions.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I am snipping this only for brevity and because we agree somewhat:

And nowhere did I express my own opinion of Paterno, but here goes:

In the case of Paterno, it is difficult to ignore millions of dollars donated to PSU and his charitable work. I'm not talking about football here; in my view, the football culture at PSU was out of control even before we knew about Sandusky and child rape--a case in point being the conventional notion that JP had more power than the university president. Lots of arrogance there. In the first incarnation of this story, I thought it was ludicrous for JP to claim he did his job by just reporting up the chain of command because in every sense that matters, he was not accountable to those people at all. I would like to see the documentation from the civll cases before reaching a decision in my own mind about what JP knew and when he knew it; I haven't seen said documents, and I don't put much stock in simple media reports, as they are often inaccurate. I have rarely agreed with JJ over the years, but I want to see documentation. The civil cases are likely to yield a lot of interesting stuff, if any of it sees the light of day. I've always wondered what, exactly, triggered Sandusky leaving that plum coaching position when he did. It's certainly a possibility that he was forced out for abusing kids but not exposed and thus free to use Second Mile as a tool to recruit victims. And THAT, for sure, would be turning a blind eye to the rape of kids. That, for sure, would be unforgivable. But then, I tend to want to see documents, data, proof before I reach my conclusions.

I would say that Paterno's actions dealing with Sandusky should not be sole definition of Paterno's life. Paterno, like the rest of us, is not a one dimensional figure. As the good lady from Pittsburgh noted, Paterno did donate and raise money for education at Penn State. The library is not a sports library. When I was there, in the mid-1980's, there was a greater emphasis on education than on sports. I had classes with football players, and I would not have known it except that after my class, my professor pointed out to me that the next day was an away game and that the two team members taking the class were actually there.

One point that the good lady from the Three Rivers did miss was something from Paterno's early career, when he refused to take a bowl bid that would have involved him having to segregate the team racially. Penn State was a school that helped open college football to Black players. Paterno was part of that, and, as an assistant, was involved in the first game in which Alabama ever played against a team with Black players.

Now, I would call those things admirable. That was part of Joe Paterno. In his life, Paterno did things that I think most of would agree were admirable. That doesn't make up for his failings, but it is a three dimensional picture of Paterno.

That Joe Paterno felt that just calling Tim Curley and telling that there was a problem was enough and that he "had other things to do," is not admirable, though not criminal. We should expect more from a guy depicted in public art in State College with a halo. We may find out that Paterno's role in covering this up was more involved, and maybe crossed into criminal action. We may find out that Paterno trusted the people he knew to do the right thing didn't do the right thing and that his greatest sin was misplaced trust. He should have done more, and when the final lines are written on this, I will say that I should have done more. I'm willing to hold off on Paterno (while realizing that he could have been a leader in a cover up) until we get more evidence.

(I fully intend to go into why I should have done more when the legal case is under way.)

 

[mickey2942]

I think we also have to acknowledge the sociopathy of Sandusky. Child predators, unlike their media portrayal, are the most genial, likeable people on the planet. They cultivate a persona of extreme ebullient charm, and innocence. Which is why it can take decades to convict a hard core child predator.

That was part of the systemic problem in the Catholic Church, the accused are likeable guys, who if caught, often give a glib answer of half truths, that sound plausible. "I was taking an innocent shower with the kid, brushed against him, when I slipped, come on...".

I have no doubt Sandusky snowed Joe Pa for years, until finally, it was time to cut him loose, and they still did not have enough hard evidence have him charged, they just wanted him off the payroll.

 

[Mollyandme]

My husband is a Penn state grad, and he , to this day, states "Joe Pa", knew nothing, and was hoodwinked by Sandusky. So, that is how loyal Penn state alumni are still...

Not all of us. I'm a penn state alum 07 and do not for one second believe Joe Pa knew nothing. I have a lot of good friends that are also alums and feel the same way I do with differing opinions on how much he knew but out of my group of friends we all agree he knew something. I did have to stop reading some of the sports blogs I used to read when it became obvious that many seemed more concerned with "restoring" joe paternos name than anything else.

As a mandated reporter and above all else a human being I find all who had any inkling of sanduskys crimes, or even a strong suspicion that failed to report this to the proper agency and or LE incomprehensible. I could write a five page post about the incompetences I have seen in our states CYS departments since I worked there and left for another job after being unable to handle the incompetence I saw on a daily basis, but that is no excuse for what I believe was a cover up at penn state.

 

[Mollyandme]

That Joe Paterno felt that just calling Tim Curley and telling that there was a problem was enough and that he "had other things to do," is not admirable, though not criminal. We should expect more from a guy depicted in public art in State College with a halo. We may find out that Paterno's role in covering this up was more involved, and maybe crossed into criminal action. We may find out that Paterno trusted the people he knew to do the right thing didn't do the right thing and that his greatest sin was misplaced trust. He should have done more, and when the final lines are written on this, I will say that I should have done more. I'm willing to hold off on Paterno (while realizing that he could have been a leader in a cover up) until we get more evidence.

(I fully intend to go into why I should have done more when the legal case is under way.)

This is kind of where my head is at right now. But the one part that I can't get past is Even if Joe Paterno had great trust in Tim Curley and others to do the right thing, I have been told from as long as I can remember that in life, if you want something done right, you do it yourself and in terms of child abuse/neglect or other concerns of criminal activity, you follow up until you have done all you can to get the information you were told or are personally aware of into the proper authorities hands. they taught me that last part in an upper level course senior year in a human development and family studies course at penn state when someone asked the professor what a mandated reporter is supposed to do if the person in their organization that generally calls CYS doesn't report all pertinent info, the issue isn't resolved or responded to, etc.

Maybe I'm getting too far off here, but I would think a head football coach who liked to have the program run his way, was well regarded in the community, and was a father and grandfather, would be more likely to make sure this was handled and all info given to the right authorities by him rather than passing it up the totem pole and sweeping it under the rug. I know previous arguments have been made here and else where that it could have been a "generational issue" with him not understanding the gravity of what he was told by MM but as a parent himself how does one justify that as a "generational issue?"

Like others, I would need to see more from the civil cases about how deep this went in regards to Paterno but he himself said that in hindsight, he wish he did more. The truth is important but I don't see anything rehabilitating the public perception of Paterno and I can understand why.

 

[mickey2942]

I am a "mandatory" reporter as well, about child abuse. I have done it several times, and the questions I have been asked, when I called, were more like I was supposed to have the evidence in hand, rather than just reporting something that merits further investigation.

Perhaps they have changed the training for reporting...because, when I have done it, it seemed almost like a waste of time to me, sadly. And, one time, I actually felt attacked for making a report.

 

[Mollyandme]

I am a "mandatory" reporter as well, about child abuse. I have done it several times, and the questions I have been asked, when I called, were more like I was supposed to have the evidence in hand, rather than just reporting something that merits further investigation.

Perhaps they have changed the training for reporting...because, when I have done it, it seemed almost like a waste of time to me, sadly. And, one time, I actually felt attacked for making a report.

I am so sorry you felt that way and sadly you are not alone. In my time working in child welfare I had so many mandated reporters tell me when I responded to the school or hospital, or followed up with them on the phone that they were at a loss for words at how they were treated while making a report to the intake department phone screener. it's one of the main reasons I left. No matter how many times I told supervisors of my concerns at the lack of training, lack of appropriate response to reports, and that's literally the tip of the ice berg, I realized that I could not in good conscience work for that organization. The way mandated reporters, or anyone who calls in a report in good faith is interrogated bothers me and these sometimes downright rude and condescending questions and attitudes given to the mandated reporters by some intake screeners are unacceptable and the complete opposite of how someone trying to gather information about the safety and well being of a child should be treating a fellow human trying to do the right thing.

Sorry about my rant but I promise there are some good caseworkers out there. I do believe PA has streamlined their reporting and can be done online through childline with some sort of ability to follow up on the report made within reason (this is according to my friend who's an adolescent psychologist so I might be repeating it wrong). Anyway, you must have a special job that puts you in contact with kids and I hope you know how much I respect that, our children are our future and deserve positive role models and adults who protect them. Nice speaking with you and thank you for bringing up the issue on mandated reporters and the barriers they face when trying to make a report, it's really unacceptable and an important issue, it seriously makes me sick.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Here's what worries me: No matter how much Paterno and others either missed or ignored about Sandusky, the real problem is that the people who should have brought Sandusky and others like him to justice have totally dropped the ball. I'm still waiting for even one other person to be arrested for molesting kids from Second Mile--because these dirtbags don't operate in a vacuum. I think the notpsu blog has done a very good job at digging out some of this stuff, but we get crickets here in PA about pedophile rings. Read that blog. Read this article about the Oakland Child Killer murders. Whatever Paterno did or did not do--he wasn't part of a pedophile ring. Where is the real investigation here?

https://medium.com/@J.Reuben.Appelman/blood-semen-saliva-prints-3fdab84c73d7#.xhxtby47e

 

[mickey2942]

We could go on about CPS, and the enormous problems with that system. I was offered a position there, consulting contract, I turned it down flat. Because they don't really want to fix the systematic problems, just a quick "surface" fix.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Here's what worries me: No matter how much Paterno and others either missed or ignored about Sandusky, the real problem is that the people who should have brought Sandusky and others like him to justice have totally dropped the ball. I'm still waiting for even one other person to be arrested for molesting kids from Second Mile--because these dirtbags don't operate in a vacuum. I think the notpsu blog has done a very good job at digging out some of this stuff, but we get crickets here in PA about pedophile rings. Read that blog. Read this article about the Oakland Child Killer murders. Whatever Paterno did or did not do--he wasn't part of a pedophile ring. Where is the real investigation here?

https://medium.com/@J.Reuben.Appelman/blood-semen-saliva-prints-3fdab84c73d7#.xhxtby47e

Blehar made several mistakes about 1998, including that DPW made its finding before the Centre Co. DA's Office.

He also admitted to not being too familiar with Gricar case, that intersects this the PSU Scandal, if only tangentially.

I would not discount the possibility of some type of pedophile ring.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

We have a summary of what Sandusky says he will testify to at the appeal hearing: https://www.scribd.com/document/320...ndusky-Proposed-Testimony-08-08-16#from_embed