Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal (Indictment Post #144, "Pimping" Allegations Post #442)

[JBond]

Once again, no one is saying he should have said something directly to the cop. Problem is that the amount of blame being leveled at Paterno who wasn't even a witness to the event,, is being made out to be the worst person in the world.

He did the things he was supposed to do and thought at 72 years old, that what he was told was being done. It wasn't.

What in the hell does his age have to do with anything? After 70 you lose all sensibility and morality?

 

[WoodysGirl]

You're wrong. The indictment never said that was the reason he wouldn't be coach. Sandusky just told him not to tell anyone he wouldn't be coach.

Isn't that what I said?

But to gain clarification, this is what is in the indictment on page 16, last para of Victim 4's testimony:

Victim 4 remembers Sandusky being emotionally upset after having a meeting with Joe Paterno in which Paterno told Sandusky that he was not going to be the next head coach at Penn State and which preceded Sandusky's retirement. Sandusky told Victim 4 not to tell anyone about that meeting. That meeting occurred in May 1999.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/264788/pages/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment-p16-normal.gif

Again, someone tells you they saw something and then you go to the cops, the cops are going to ant to talk to the witness, not you. Since it happened on work property, you go to your boss to report it and he goes to the cops. That's how it works.

That's pure BS. If I see a 60 yr-old man having anal sex with a young boy in a shower, I'm not gonna defer to the chain of command. If I'm told that my GA saw my former longtime assistant, who has a history of this kinda thing, in a shower with a young boy, I'm not gonna defer to the chain of command.

Serious question. Do you think everyone did what they were supposed to do regarding the 2002 incident? And that what they did should exempt them from criticism? From McQueary on up.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Once again, no one is saying he should have said something directly to the cop. Problem is that the amount of blame being leveled at Paterno who wasn't even a witness to the event,, is being made out to be the worst person in the world.

He did the things he was supposed to do and thought at 72 years old, that what he was told was being done. It wasn't.

My problem with Joe Pa, is he had enough influence, power or what ever you want to call it, to end this in 2002 at the earliest and either chose not to or didn't care enough to try.

Both are pretty bad.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

What in the hell does his age have to do with anything? After 70 you lose all sensibility and morality?

No. But knowing what i know about Joe and his situation at PSU, he wasn't involved in a lot of the decisions after he hit 70. There was even talk around this time about Joe not returning to coach since he was having some bad seasons. Now that I think about it, that may very well had been the impetus for the conversation with Sandusky about the HC position.

Either way, he may well has been told something and believed it and let it go.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

My problem with Joe Pa, is he had enough influence, power or what ever you want to call it, to end this in 2002 at the earliest and either chose not to or didn't care enough to try.

Both are pretty bad.

With what proof? No proof he knew of the 1998 incident. He has a second hand witness that said he saw something and he reported it and was told it wasn't credible. So what is supposed to do with that?

 

[WoodysGirl]

Campus police were most certainly informed. Schultz is the HEAD of campus police.

I'm looking at the indictment. Schulz was the VP for Finance and Business during that time, not the head of campus police. I don't see anywhere in the report he was the head of campus police at that time.

They didn't report it to the university of police, the regular police, nor did they contact CPS.

 

[JBond]

I don't think Joe made any judgement about what was going on. He referred the matter to his superior, was told by he and the head of campus police they would investigate, was lied to and told that there was nothing there, and that was it. He didn't suspect anything further or pass judgement on anyone, he thought there was nothing there because that's what he was told. Maybe he thought McQueary was making it up, maybe he thought he just wasn't sure what he saw, who knows. I don't see a reason to take anything out on McQueary for coming to him with something he thought he saw though.

How can you not make a judgement. He found out his long time confidant and assistant is raping children and he has zero intellectual curiosity? McQueary watched a ten year old being raped! Hello! That is not something you make up.

So the joe defense theory is he did everything he could and that Joe believed McQueary is a liar? makes no sense.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm looking at the indictment. Schulz was the VP for Finance and Business during that time, not the head of campus police. I don't see anywhere in the report he was the head of campus police at that time.

They didn't report it to the university of police, the regular police, nor did they contact CPS.

Page 10 of the indictment states that Shultz was over the Campus Police.

 

[JBond]

With what proof? No proof he knew of the 1998 incident. He has a second hand witness that said he saw something and he reported it and was told it wasn't credible. So what is supposed to do with that?

Shaking my head....

So....If a co-worker came up to you and said he saw your best friend, who also works for you, raping a child in a bathroom all you do is call your boss? Really? That is how you would handle it?

I guess we each handle our business in a different way.

 

[casmith07]

Shaking my head....

So....If a co-worker came up to you and said he saw your best friend, who also works for you, raping a child in a bathroom all you do is call your boss? Really? That is how you would handle it?

I guess we each handle our business in a different way.

The 1998 incident wasn't the same as the 2002 rape.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

With what proof? No proof he knew of the 1998 incident. He has a second hand witness that said he saw something and he reported it and was told it wasn't credible. So what is supposed to do with that?

I guess it would've been inappropriate to ask the GA was he ever questioned by the police. And surely no self respecing police officer would talk to Joe Pa if he asked a police officer about the investigation/case.

 

[trickblue]

What dots? I guess you should be able to prove that MQueary knew as well. We dang sure know that the cps knew. Why aren't they on the hot seat as well as Paterno? You don't just accuse someone of "knowing" something without proof. And you or no one else has that proof.

You lost me here, Cajun... what does McQueary have to do with the incident in '98?

I certainly have the right to accuse ANYONE of knowing something with out proof. PLEASE don't sit here and say you've never done that... Heck, we've ALL done it... especially on the old political boards. It's very much easy to connect the dots here...

As I replied to rth in another thread:

Reading PSU message boards many said it was obvious that Joe Pa had cooled to Sandusky in '99 and that he had very little of anything to say to him or at his retirement banquet other than short generic quips. I'm sure he knew. Since no charges were filed I think Joe Pa demonstrated the man he was known to be by cutting ties with what many considered the best assistant coach in the business...

I think in the 2002 incident, he was so disassociated with Sandusky he reported it to his superiors (who REALLY dropped the ball) and gave the whole situation the Pontius Pilate treatment...

Being the figurehead of PSU, he is now taking a fall for not reporting it to police...

 

[WoodysGirl]

Page 10 of the indictment states that Shultz was over the Campus Police.

I don't see that in the indictment. Howver, page 8 said it was never reported to the university police or any police agency.

What is pretty clear is that no police agency investigated this travesty nor did anyone follow-up to see who the kid was in the shower in 2002.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Shaking my head....

So....If a co-worker came up to you and said he saw your best friend, who also works for you, raping a child in a bathroom all you do is call your boss? Really? That is how you would handle it?

I guess we each handle our business in a different way.

SAndusky didn't work for Paterno at the time.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I don't see that in the indictment. Howver, page 8 said it was never reported to the university police or any police agency.

What is pretty clear is that no police agency investigated this travesty nor did anyone follow-up to see who the kid was in the shower in 2002.

It's right there on page 10 if you go that far.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

The more I read, from the links and the people in these threads, the more and more disgusted I am by the whole thing.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You lost me here, Cajun... what does McQueary have to do with the incident in '98?

I certainly have the right to accuse ANYONE of knowing something with out proof. PLEASE don't sit here and say you've never done that... Heck, we've ALL done it... especially on the old political boards. It's very much easy to connect the dots here...

As I replied to rth in another thread:

That's my point. Exactly nothing. McQueary had nothing to do with the 1998 incident and there is no proof that Paterno did either.

 

[WoodysGirl]

It's right there on page 10 if you go that far.

Ok I missed it the first time. Yes, technically he was over the university police, because of his position as VP, but he never reported it to the actual university police or any other police agency.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

Ok I missed it the first time. Yes, technically he was over the university police, because of his position as VP, but he never reported it to the actual university police or any other police agency.

Right, and that is on him. But he told Paterno it was and there was no credible evidence of anything wrong. That was what Paterno was told, supposedly by the head of the Campus Police, Schultz.

 

[trickblue]

That's my point. Exactly nothing. McQueary had nothing to do with the 1998 incident and there is no proof that Paterno did either.

Geez cajun... that is not a good connect the dots thing, my friend...

Think in the concept of cause and effect...