Jerry Sandusky - all relevant threads consolidated


#7961
[quote="greenmanRD, post:7953, topic:2287"]Didn't say that but perhaps he shouldn't have gotten involved at all?[/quote]

I don’t think he had any choice. It would have been nice if Mr. McQueary had told Mike to go to the PSU police instead of his boss. But that’s not how it played out.

Fair enough.


#7962
[quote="UncleLar, post:7957, topic:2287"]I'm almost sure that my first reaction wouldn't have been to call the police, or even IBM security. I most likely would have gotten in touch with my boss too.[/quote]

The only issue I have with what you are saying is that Joe wasn’t the first person he told. Or even the second. One of the other two people he told should have advised him to call the police if he told them what he now claims to have seen. That part leaves me scratching my head.

Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I’m thinking John McQueary wishes he had told his son to forget that he saw anything. I could easily see how John McQueary could have been torn between protecting (look the other way) and doing the honorable thing (calling the authorities immediately). He could have easily felt that the prudent thing to do would have been to let Paterno et al handle it, in other words, to get his ducks all in a row. if Mike were going to accuse Sandusky, he really needed Paterno and the AD on his side BEFORE he crawled out on that limb.

Given what’s happened to Mike, it probably would’ve been best for him to just not say anything. What’s he even doing these days?


#7963
[quote="UncleLar, post:7957, topic:2287"]I'm almost sure that my first reaction wouldn't have been to call the police, or even IBM security. I most likely would have gotten in touch with my boss too.[/quote]

The only issue I have with what you are saying is that Joe wasn’t the first person he told. Or even the second. One of the other two people he told should have advised him to call the police if he told them what he now claims to have seen. That part leaves me scratching my head.

Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I’m thinking John McQueary wishes he had told his son to forget that he saw anything. I could easily see how John McQueary could have been torn between protecting (look the other way) and doing the honorable thing (calling the authorities immediately). He could have easily felt that the prudent thing to do would have been to let Paterno et al handle it, in other words, to get his ducks all in a row. if Mike were going to accuse Sandusky, he really needed Paterno and the AD on his side BEFORE he crawled out on that limb.

Given what’s happened to Mike, it probably would’ve been best for him to just not say anything. What’s he even doing these days?

As far as I know nothing. I see him around town maybe once every year or two. Since this whole thing broke, I think once downtown during the Arts Fest, once in Wegman’s, and twice at Toftrees (he’s a very good golfer and has tried to qualify for the US Open twice but not played very well).


#7964
[quote="UncleLar, post:7957, topic:2287"]I'm almost sure that my first reaction wouldn't have been to call the police, or even IBM security. I most likely would have gotten in touch with my boss too.[/quote]

The only issue I have with what you are saying is that Joe wasn’t the first person he told. Or even the second. One of the other two people he told should have advised him to call the police if he told them what he now claims to have seen. That part leaves me scratching my head.

Frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, I’m thinking John McQueary wishes he had told his son to forget that he saw anything. I could easily see how John McQueary could have been torn between protecting (look the other way) and doing the honorable thing (calling the authorities immediately). He could have easily felt that the prudent thing to do would have been to let Paterno et al handle it, in other words, to get his ducks all in a row. if Mike were going to accuse Sandusky, he really needed Paterno and the AD on his side BEFORE he crawled out on that limb.

Given what’s happened to Mike, it probably would’ve been best for him to just not say anything. What’s he even doing these days?

As far as I know nothing. I see him around town maybe once every year or two. Since this whole thing broke, I think once downtown during the Arts Fest, once in Wegman’s, and twice at Toftrees (he’s a very good golfer and has tried to qualify for the US Open twice but not played very well).

And isn’t that the saddest statement of all of this, outside of the actual boys who were molested.

The one person who tried to do the right thing when he saw something, is the one paying the greatest price. What does that say to others who see something like what Mike saw and want to blow the whistle. “It’s best to stay silent” and move on. Just wrong.


#7965

For the kind of people who speak up when they see wrong, I am certain that the high price of not doing anything would be worse. (Which is not to say that the thought hasn’t probably crossed his mind many times.)


#7966

Does the name Abar Rouse ring any bells?


#7967

#7968

Did C/S/S really know the details of '98, or did they just know that there was an investigation that did not lead to charges (in affect absolving JS)? If the latter, then they would not necessarily have reason to think 2001 was any different, if they interpreted MM report as “horseplay.” For them to have been told details, wouldn’t that be a violation of confidentiality on the part of the police/DA/CYS?

Second, Schultz and Harmon(?) testified that they believed 2001 WAS reported to DPW/CYS. But if it was deemed a “false alarm” like '98, any records would have been destroyed as “unfounded” and would no longer exist. So I don’t think we really know whether 2001 was reported or not. And it was after 2001, not 1998, that JS was told not to bring kids onto campus anymore.

In any case, there is an awful lot of hindsight bias at play in the way people view what (they think) took place.


#7969

Assuming I’m interpreting your question right, the answer is yes, they knew that Sandusky was being investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with a child. It’s in the Freeh Report emails, you can see that for yourself. Mind you, I think “absolving JS” are not necessarily the right words here. I did say you can look at them favorably (or not unfavorably) for 1998 if you want, it’s not cut and dry. I choose not too (and admitted that this maybe too much given I have the benefit of hindsight bias).

I don’t know whether 2001 was reported or not and if it was, then that would help my view of those actors much more favorably. However, I don’t know whether that’s the case, and given emails that have been released to this point, it’s reasonable to think they very well may have never reported it. And if they never reported it, given what we can assume they knew in 2001 (that Jerry had been investigated for this in 1998 and knew what he was being investigated for), then I think we can view them quite negatively.

I choose to believe that they didn’t report it because we don’t have any evidence of it. The possible destruction of evidence they did is an explanation for why there may not be evidence from DPW’s side, but that doesn’t provide an answer as to missing evidence from PSU’s side. If that evidence is found and/or ever released, then I will feel far differently about them.


#7970
[quote="Chooch, post:7968, topic:2287"]Did C/S/S really know the details of '98, or did they just know that there was an investigation that did not lead to charges (in affect absolving JS)? If the latter, then they would not necessarily have reason to think 2001 was any different, if they interpreted MM report as "horseplay." For them to have been told details, wouldn't that be a violation of confidentiality on the part of the police/DA/CYS?[/quote]

Assuming I’m interpreting your question right, the answer is yes, they knew that Sandusky was being investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with a child. It’s in the Freeh Report emails, you can see that for yourself. Mind you, I think “absolving JS” are not necessarily the right words here. I did say you can look at them favorably (or not unfavorably) for 1998 if you want, it’s not cut and dry. I choose not too (and admitted that this maybe too much given I have the benefit of hindsight bias).

Correct that they knew that Sandusky was being investigated. And correct that they knew that he was being investigated for showering with a child. But “inappropriate behavior” while in the shower? Not so sure about that. What they did know was that he was told to not shower with kids anymore but I’m not sure it’s clear what they were told about what actually happened in the shower other than it was nothing criminal. If you can point me to something that says differently, I’d appreciate it.


#7971
[quote="Chooch, post:7968, topic:2287"]Did C/S/S really know the details of '98, or did they just know that there was an investigation that did not lead to charges (in affect absolving JS)? If the latter, then they would not necessarily have reason to think 2001 was any different, if they interpreted MM report as "horseplay." For them to have been told details, wouldn't that be a violation of confidentiality on the part of the police/DA/CYS?[/quote]

Assuming I’m interpreting your question right, the answer is yes, they knew that Sandusky was being investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with a child. It’s in the Freeh Report emails, you can see that for yourself. Mind you, I think “absolving JS” are not necessarily the right words here. I did say you can look at them favorably (or not unfavorably) for 1998 if you want, it’s not cut and dry. I choose not too (and admitted that this maybe too much given I have the benefit of hindsight bias).

Correct that they knew that Sandusky was being investigated. And correct that they knew that he was being investigated for showering with a child. But “inappropriate behavior” while in the shower? Not so sure about that. What they did know was that he was told to not shower with kids anymore but I’m not sure it’s clear what they were told about what actually happened in the shower other than it was nothing criminal. If you can point me to something that says differently, I’d appreciate it.

I’m not an expert on this topic, but…

…didn’t I hear about Shultz having “a file” on the 1998 investigation? I think his secretary mentioned it, and Schultz admitted to having it.

I think it contained the same police report from 1998 that was linked a page earlier in this thread.


#7972

I think the question is what level of detail did they have about '98. They seemed to acknowledge knowing about it in the email exchanges - or assuming that all parties knew.


#7973

Well, if Schultz had a copy of the police report in his file (which is not unheard of, seeing the position that he was in), wouldn’t he a pretty high level of detail?


#7974
[quote="Chooch, post:7968, topic:2287"]Did C/S/S really know the details of '98, or did they just know that there was an investigation that did not lead to charges (in affect absolving JS)? If the latter, then they would not necessarily have reason to think 2001 was any different, if they interpreted MM report as "horseplay." For them to have been told details, wouldn't that be a violation of confidentiality on the part of the police/DA/CYS?[/quote]

Assuming I’m interpreting your question right, the answer is yes, they knew that Sandusky was being investigated for inappropriate behavior in the shower with a child. It’s in the Freeh Report emails, you can see that for yourself. Mind you, I think “absolving JS” are not necessarily the right words here. I did say you can look at them favorably (or not unfavorably) for 1998 if you want, it’s not cut and dry. I choose not too (and admitted that this maybe too much given I have the benefit of hindsight bias).

Correct that they knew that Sandusky was being investigated. And correct that they knew that he was being investigated for showering with a child. But “inappropriate behavior” while in the shower? Not so sure about that. What they did know was that he was told to not shower with kids anymore but I’m not sure it’s clear what they were told about what actually happened in the shower other than it was nothing criminal. If you can point me to something that says differently, I’d appreciate it.

I’m not an expert on this topic, but…

…didn’t I hear about Shultz having “a file” on the 1998 investigation? I think his secretary mentioned it, and Schultz admitted to having it.

I think it contained the same police report from 1998 that was linked a page earlier in this thread.

Schultz had a Sandusky file. People insinuate that it was some sort of secret file and the way that you phrased the sentence “I think his secretary mentioned it, and Schultz admitted to having it” presents it in the same manner. The fact is that Schultz testified to the Grand Jury that he did at one time have a file on Sandusky, that he left it behind when he retired, and that he really didn’t know what happened to it after that. Also, the references that I have seen to that file said it contained emails that referenced Sandusky along with handwritten notes that Schultz had taken regarding Sandusky. Never have I seen a claim that there was a police report in there.

His secretary testified at a later hearing that the Sandusky file was kept in a bottom drawer of bookcase along with other confidential files, such as employment contracts, on prominent university employees. She also stated those confidential files were handled that way before Schultz took the job and continued to be handled that way after Schultz left.

So the file was actually a business as usual situation for handling prominent university officials’ files. It wasn’t something that was unique to Sandusky, and while it was a confidential file, I think calling it a “secret” file suggests something more nefarious than it actually was.


#7975

Am I mixing up years? Wasn’t he also alleged to have bearhugged the 1998 child (victim 6) as well?


#7976
[quote="UncleLar, post:7970, topic:2287"]Correct that they knew that Sandusky was being investigated. And correct that they knew that he was being investigated for showering with a child. But "inappropriate behavior" while in the shower? Not so sure about that.[/quote]

Am I mixing up years? Wasn’t he also alleged to have bearhugged the 1998 child (victim 6) as well?

We know that they knew he was being investigated and we know that they were informed that there would be no criminal charges but we don’t know if they knew the details of what he was accused of doing beyond showering with kids. Besides even if they knew he bearhugged the kid, that isn’t illegal and would fit the description of “horsing around”.


#7977

Ok, for some reason I thought that he did bearhug Victim 6 in the shower too. Doesn’t seem as conclusive as it was in my mind.

That still really doesn’t change much in terms of how I feel about them not reporting 2001 (as I assume so, until proven otherwise).


#7978

[quote=“greenmanRD, post:7977, topic:2287”]Ok, for some reason I thought that he did bearhug Victim 6 in the shower too. Doesn’t seem as conclusive as it was in my mind.

That still really doesn’t change much in terms of how I feel about them not reporting 2001 (as I assume so, until proven otherwise).[/quote]

We know that now. We don’t know that any PSU staff knew that then.


#7979

I think what a lot of people, me included, have issues with is the fact that certain Penn Staters along the way, when discussing this matter, have or had seen no issues with Sandusky just showering with boys.

  "Oh, he didn't do (this or that), so that's just 'horsing around' and that's OK."

Grown man, showering alone with 10, 11, 12 year old boys who are not his son. Sorry folks…but I don’t care if there is nothing illegal about it. THAT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN EVER.

For that, there is no “in hindsight”. Shame on those in 1998 (and maybe 2001) for not doing more themselves.


#7980

[quote=“NittanyIllini, post:7979, topic:2287”]I think what a lot of people, me included, have issues with is the fact that certain Penn Staters along the way, when discussing this matter, have or had seen no issues with Sandusky just showering with boys.

  "Oh, he didn't do (this or that), so that's just 'horsing around' and that's OK."

Grown man, showering alone with 10, 11, 12 year old boys who are not his son. Sorry folks…but I don’t care if there is nothing illegal about it. THAT SHOULDN’T HAPPEN EVER.

For that, there is no “in hindsight”. Shame on those in 1998 (and maybe 2001) for not doing more themselves.[/quote]

Depends on when you grew up. It was common practice when I was a youth (and, to my understanding, was even a common practice up until recently in many YMCAs). Heck, when I was a freshman at PSU, you were required to take a swimming class (or maybe it was pass a swimming test) which took place at the downtown natatorium and was conducted in the nude. Nobody thought twice about it. Think that would happen today? Not likely. That’s probably part of the reason that Penn State’s coaching staff, which was up in years, never raised a red flag when Jerry brought kids around the locker room.