I had written a whole long post and lost it!

Essentially, ColAngus, if you look at the report and the timeline in which everything played out, the emails that were called into question occured during the same time period in which they were investigating the 1998 incident, within May of 1998.

"Schultz's confidential notes also show that sometime before 9:00am on May 5, 1998, Harmon reported to Schultz that the victim had been re-interviewed and had provided additional details about the incident and demonstrated "on chair how Jerry hugged from back hands around abdmin (sic) & down to thighs - picked him up and held him at the shower head - rince soap out of ears." The notes also state that "the mother had spoken to a psychologist who had been seeing the boy, who would call child abuse hot line & will generate an incident no - with Dept of Public Welfare," and that the police interviewed the second boy who reported "Simliar acct. Locker room. Wrestling. Kissed on head. Hugging from behind in shower. No allegation beyond that." Schultz's notes end with these questions: "Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?"

By May 5, 1998, Schutlz had communicated with Curley about the Sandusky incident. In an email from Curley to Schultz and Spanier at 5:24 p.m. captioned "Joe Paterno," Curley reports, "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks."

While the article you posted was correct, that the email subject was Joe Paterno, he neglected to discuss the timeline in which these emails were being sent. This was a major issue for the university. There was the possibility of multiple victims. Schultz was aware of that. This incident would have been a MAJOR incident for the college due to the possiblity of legal action or of even being sued. It is not coincidence that Curley emailed and stated that he has touched base with the coach around this same time period (on the same date that it had been reported to Schultz about the victim being reinterviewed). Also, this date in particular (May 5, 1998) Schultz had learned that Harmon (Penn State University Police) was going to hold off on making a crime log entry because it would be a public record of the incident and justified it with "a lack of clear evidence of a crime". And you are going to say the email had nothing to do with this incident? I don't believe in coincidences.

I found this paragraph related to the second email your article questioned:

As the investigation progressed, Curley made several requests to Schultz for updates. On May 13, 1998 at 2:21 p.m., Curley emailed Schultz a message captioned "Jerry" and asked, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." Schultz forwarded Curley's note to Harmon, who provided an email update that Schultz then forwarded to Curley. The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno.

So, essentially, with this email, he was asking about updates regarding the situation related to Sandusky. I doubt very seriously that the "coach" mentioned in the email was Sandusky, and do believe it would be Paterno. The reason I do not believe it was Sandusky, is because there is no evidence supporting that they had been keeping Sandusky abreast of the investigation. In fact, it would have been even more damaging for them if they had been keeping Sandusky updated on the investigation. But it would not have been out of character to keep the HEAD COACH updated on the investigation related to one of his coaches and any illicit activities.

Paterno would have remained involved in this situation, updated on this situation, because he was essentially Sandusky's boss. If they were investigating something that could be illegal, they would have kept Sandusky's boss in the loop in case Sandusky would need to be fired or disciplinary action taken. To think otherwise is naive in my opinion.

thanks for having a civil discussion on the matter . So many seem to just say "paterno should rot in hell " etc ...

I cannot imagine what the family is going thru right now ... after all this ... ugh ...

Sandusky was investigated in 98 . The police chose NOT to prosecute which was an error by alot of people in my opinion .

But to make a leap - that Paterno did not want it to come out and cared NOTHING about the children- I think is a sad and dangerous statement about our times ...

I DO THINK Joe was a 70 plus yr old man ... who ... said ... "lets get rid of this guy " and move on and win some football games ... (after they decided NOT to prosecute). While I think he could have done more yes (and there are several more guilty people like the janitor etc) - - - to do what the NCAA did is essentially punish the future players , restaurant people , little guys etc ... such overkill and drama for an event that now will last years ... maybe decades ...

and who is the real bad guy - some guy in jail . NOt some guy who is dead .

Did Joe know then , that he was a abuser of children ? I am not convinced he did . He may have heard things ... or comments ... and just said "ok this guy is creepy , I do not want him around anymore " ...

Joe gave Sandusky the option to continue to coach as long as Joe was around. It doesn't sound like he didn't want him around. Sandusky is the one that chose to go ahead and retire and not take Joe up on the offer to remain a coach.

Did Joe know in '98 that Sandusky was an abuser of children? Probably not. But he did know in 2001. However, I would argue that the '98 incident was not the first incident that threw suspicion on Sandusky. (In fact there were more men that came forward after the trial began, stating that Sandusky had abused them in the 70s.) It could be that the '98 incident was the first incident in which there was an "outside" person who had reported the incident (the boy's mother) and the first time there was an "investigation" and it had to be reported. There is a reason that Joe told Sandusky that he would never be the head coach. Sandusky, as you said, was a well-respected coach. He was a good coach. It would not be outside the realm of imagination that Sandusky would take over when JoePa retired. Except that JoePa told him he would never be the head coach. You are right, something happened, and I'm wondering whether there were rumors going around about Sandusky's inappropriate behavior with children. In the report, it states that JoePa had told Sandusky that it was due to Sandusky's involvment with the The Second Mile.

You mentioned having a friend who had child porn and you not really caring. There is a BIG difference between you reading about your friend having the child porn and having someone report to you, that your employee was showering with a boy and acting inappropriate to children. If someone came to you and told you that your employee was acting inappropriately with children, on company grounds, and you knew this could have negative consequences on your company, would you really not care? I would beg to differ and say that you would care a great deal, because that employees actions could have huge ramifications for you and your company if it were found out. Let's say, you as the employer then investigates, involving your own local investigator, who decides to hold off on making a crime log because of "lack of CLEAR evidence" (not that there was a lack of evidence, but that there was a lack of clear evidence), and then 3 years later you are approached about that same employee, only this time the accusation is clearly of a sexual nature against a young child. Would you, in good conscience, only report it to your higher ups? Would you, in good conscience, allow this individual to remain a part of your company? Would you, in good conscience, be able to continue to be involved with this individual?

Paterno knew Sandusky was abusing children in 2001. Paterno knew of the previous allegations against Sandusky in '98, and was "kept informed" of the investigation. Paterno denied knowing about any incident in '98, as did the others involved, and yet, there is evidence they all knew of the allegations in '98. The fact of the matter is, they did nothing. And in doing nothing, in not reporting all of this to the police, in not turning over everything they had to the police, they were covering it up. They continued to allow Sandusky to have access to the property, well into 2011. They helped him to set up a football camp with children. They knew he acted inappropriately with children, and yet, they allowed him to set up another program in which he could continue to be around children on school properties. Yes, they covered their heads and they hoped it would go away. In covering their heads, they covered what was happening. And in covering their heads, they are complicit for any child that was abused AFTER the first report. They allowed Sandusky to continue to abuse children, they gave him the means to with continued access to the college and the football program, and they failed, as mandatory reporters, to protect the children.

JoePa is essentially the mother of a child who is being sexually abused for years by the father and does nothing to protect that child. When people learn of a child who has been abused for years, they wonder where the other adults were that are in that child's life, why didn't those adults step up and protect that child, why did they allow this child to suffer? And when it is discovered that the mother knew about the abuse, had seen evidence of it and still did nothing, the mother is also then charged with the crime as being complicit with the abuse. JoePa, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz had the ability to protect these children. They had an obligation to protect these children. There were policy and procedures in place regarding what to do in a situation like this, and they failed to follow their own P&Ps. In fact, they ignored them. I can tell you that in my line of work, P&P is the gold standard and you follow it completely.

You can't imagine what the family (I'm assuming JoePa's family) is going through right now, but not once have I heard you say anything about what these children went through, in some cases, for years.

good discussion . but i am goin to highlight some areas where i disagree :

Joe gave Sandusky the option to continue to coach as long as Joe was around.

on or around 1998 - or 99 - Joe told sandusky he will never be the heir to him ... Joes intention was to keep coaching ... we will probably never know exactly the conversation but Joe thought Jerry was taking too much time doing the charity ... and needed to devote more time to the team ...

I do not think Joe knew at this time . He may have known there was an "investigation " yes ... but to him , the guy was investigated and .... no charges were brought .

Do you have any idea how many times stuff like this is brought up with people in public office or high profile jobs ? I would estimate EVERY person hears things about other people - whether they are true or not ... depends on if someone likes someone or not ... etc ... its just like I said earlier about kids goofing off in the shower ... etc ..

But he did know in 2001.

ahh the incident . McQuery testified he did not , out of respect to JoePa , he DID NOT tell him all the intimate details .... so .... did Joe know ? He certainly knew something had happened ... inappropriate . So he called . He did his job . I can believe this - the guy was like 80 sheesh . I kinda feel like the grandson defending his grandfather ...

Would you, in good conscience, only report it to your higher ups? Would you, in good conscience, allow this individual to remain a part of your company? Would you, in good conscience, be able to continue to be involved with this individual?

again- i would say that anyone who ever heard joe speak , kinda felt that he was this lil guy from brooklyn who happened to be a football coach . I think he viewed himself as a small figure in this whole UNIVERSITY with hundreds of people . Again - I would say that I bet people were always saying things about certain people , not just Sandusky ... but other coaches etc . My biggest beef with the whole thing is : where were the "higher ups" in this so called charity ? I mean I know alittle bit about the boy scouts - and I was just talking to a boy scout leader the other day how they have to have 2 boy scout leaders to every "so many" kids ... at all times etc ... and how in the world was he able to just cart boys around ???

Using your analogy , if i owned a company .... not sure what you envision ... but if I had 15 employees and I found out something like this "may" be happening , if i reported it to the police ... what else would you want done ? If I took more matters into my own hands , then I would run the risk of being sued etc - if the guy was innocent of all charges and the kids are making things up etc ....

I just think it is alot of Monday morning quarterbacking . Joe made mistakes . He admitted that he should have done more . I have NOT heard that from any other people listed .

Do I feel bad for the kids ? Of course I do .

Sidenote- I did not know too much about Sandusky ... i do remember reading about him and his coaching of the defence etc ... and after he retired I remember seeing him on a local news channel promoting something for his charity ... and i remember looking at him thinking "that guy is creepy , he had realy weird teeth" etc ....

I think people are always looking for "fault" . And I am not sure you can in instance where a "monster" like Jeffrey Dahmer, this aurora co shooter , and Sandusky are out there . Yes , you can say that certain people should have stepped up , but then again - I think that there are people in the chain that just didnt follow thru ... the police ... even McQuery - I would love to see an interview with him ... i mean ... why would he NOT just jump all over Sandusky and ... again .. (frustrated with so much in this case) ...

On June 13, 1999, Curley updated Spanier and Schultz by email advising that Sandusky was leaning toward retirement if Penn State would agree to the $20,000 yearly annuity. Curley noted, "Joe did give him the option to continue to coach as long as [Paterno] was the coach." Curley suggested another option of Sandusky "coaching three more seasons and we get creative with his base salary or some other scheme that makes him whole and then some, but doesn't cost us an arm and a leg," and stated he was not comfortable with the annuity. Curley noted that "[s]ince Joe is okay with [Sandusky] continuing to coach this might make more sense to all concerned."

You are right, he was told he would never be "heir" to him, but he did give Sandusky the option to continue to coach with him.

Regarding the 2001 incident:

McQueary testitifed that he called Paterno at home around 7:30 or 8:00am the next morning and told him that he needed to meet with him. McQueary recalled Paterno said that he did not have a job for McQueary, so "if that's what it's about, don't bother coming over." McQueary told him the matter was "something much more serious" and Paterno agreed to a meeting. McQueary went to Paternos' home to talk, and according to his Grand Jury and trial testimoy, he told Paterno he saw Sandusky and "a young boy in the shower and that it was way over the lines." Recalling the activity as "extremely sexual in nature," McQueary described the "rough positioning" of Sandusky and the boy "but not in very much detail" and without using the terms "sodomy" or "anal intercourse."

Again, he told Paterno the incident was "way over the lines" and recalled the activity was "extremely sexual in nature" and described the positioning of Sandusky and the boy (and it was in the description of the positioning that he did not describe in detail).

Paterno told the Grand Jury in 2011 that he recalled having this discussion with McQueary on a Saturday morning and that McQueary told him he saw Sandusky "fondling, whatever you might call it -- I'm not sure what the term would be -- a young boy" in the showers at the Lasch Building. Paterno explained, "[o]bviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset."

Paterno also testified to the Grand Jury that he "ordinarily would have called people right away, [after hearing McQueary's report] but it was a Saturday morning and I didn't want to interfere with their weekends." Paterno thought he spoke to Curley "early the next week" or "within the week." Paterno had a telephone call with Curley and said, "[h]ey, we got a problem, and I explained the problem to him." When asked if the "information that [he] passed along was substantially the same information that [McQueary] had given him," Paterno said, "yes."

So Joe knew more than "something inappropriate" had happened. It was described to him as being "extremely sexual in nature". It was only the positioning that was not described in detail. So yes, Paterno knew that this was much more than "something inappropriate". And keep in mind, through all of this, no one attempted to identify the boy, to find out if the boy was ok, if he had been hurt. Not a one of them thought about the boy in all of this.

"a lil guy from Brooklyn who happened to be a coach"

A senior janitorial employee ("Janitor C") on duty that night spoke with the staff, who had gather with Janitor A to calm him down. Janitor C advised Janitor A how he could report what he saw, if he wanted to do so. Janitor B said he would stand by Janitor A if he reported the incident, but Janitor A said, "no, they'll get rid of all of us."

Janitor B explained to the Special Investigative Counself that reporting the incident "would have been like going against the President of the United States in my eyes." "I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." He explained, "football runs this University," and said the University would have closed ranks to protect the football program at all costs.

Others had also mentioned the power that Paterno had. He wasn't just "a lil guy from Brooklyn who happened to be a coach". It may be how he came across, but he was much more powerful than that.

You question where the higher-ups were with Second Mile. Keep in mind that Sandusky was the founder of the Second Mile. He was the one that started the charity. He was the one that got Penn State involved with the charity as well. I'm sure that none of those in the Second Mile thought Sandusky, who had started the organization to begin with, would ever do anything of that nature. Sandusy was THE HIGHER-UP of the Second Mile. Also, what was reported to the Second Mile was that "the boys were no longer allowed in the locker room or in the showers". That was it. There was no indication given to them of anything else, other than the boys were no longer allowed in the shower.

And you state "if I reported it to the police, what more do you want?" Well, for starters, it was never reported to the police. It was reported to the university police station. A police station that depended upon the university to continue to fund them. There was a conflict of interest there. It should have been reported to the state police. Secondly, it wasn't just "may be happening". Sandusky had admitted to them that he was showering with the boys. He had admitted that he had showered with many boys over the years. Also, they had told Sandusky to not shower with anymore children, and he said "okay" but there was no oversight, nothing in place to ensure that Sandusky followed through on that. They did not tell him to not bring the children onto the campus, into the locker rooms, they only told him to "not shower with anymore boys". I would think that as a good employer, you would report it to the state police. You would also report it to Children Protective Services. (Again, not once did any of these men act in a way as to take into consideration the child. In fact, all of their actions seem to indicate they did not give the child any thought whatsoever, and their only concern was that Sandusky not do this anymore on their property.) I would expect as an employer that you set into place some kind of oversight to ensure that your directive "that he not shower with any more boys" was followed. Also, I would hope that you would report it to Human Resources, as an incident of this nature should be. But they never once brought HR into this.

You admit and Joe admits that he did not do as much as he should have. Looking at the facts of the case, they did nothing. They reported it to the university police, they told Sandusky to not shower with anymore children, and that was it. These children were being sodomized in their showers. They were being assaulted and traumatized on their property. They had been told of questionable situations, situations in which confidential notes written by Schultz indicate:

"Behavior - at best inappropriate @ worst sexual improprieties;" the conduct was "At min - Poor Judgment," that Sandusky and the child were in the shower, and Sandusky "came up behind $ gave him a bear hug - said he would squeeze guts out - all;" and that the boy's ten-year-old friend "claimes same thing went on with him." The notes conclude with the words "Critical issue - contact w genitals? Assuming same experience w the second boy? Not criminal." And the notes also stated, "Similar acct. Locker room. Wrestling. Kissed on head. Hugging from behind in shower. No allegation beyond that." Schultz's notes end with these questions: "Is this opening of pandora's box? Other children?"

In another note:

Schultz's handwritten notes, which he marked as "confidential," reflect a Monday, Feb. 12, 2001 meeting with Curley to discuss the Sandusky allegations. According to Schultz's notes, Curley and Schultz talked and first "[r]eviewed 1998 history. The notes state that Schultz and Curley "[a]greed [Curley] will discuss w JVP & advise we think [Curley] should meet w JS on Friday. Unless he 'confesses' to having a problem, TMC will indicate we need to have DPW review the matter as an independent agency concerned w child welfare." The initials "JVP" appear to indicate Joseph V. Paterno. The initials "JS" appear to indicate Jerry Sandusky. The initials "TMC" appear to indicate Curley.

They knew Sandusky "had a problem".

The thing that pisses me off about this whole affair, is that not once, in the emails, or the handwritten notes, not in anything documented, is there any indication that any of these men thought about the children or indicated any concern about the children. Not once did they seem to care about Sandusky had done with these children, they only cared that he no longer do it on school property.

Another thing that indicates to me that they were covering this up was that during the Grand Jury hearing in 2011, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno all stated they did not know of the incident in 1998, nor of an investigation against Sandusky. Paterno admitted, at the very least, that a "rumor" may have been discussed in his presence, "something else about somebody" and that "I don't remember, and I could not honestly say I heard a rumor."

However, the emails and notes from that time period indicate they were all very aware of the allegations, the investigation, and were being kept informed of that investigation every step of the way. I suspect they did not know their emails and notes would be able to be used in the investigation. Perhaps they felt they had covered themselves related to having had any prior knowledge of such an allegation against Sandusky. The fact they deny having any knowledge of any incidents prior to 2001, indicates they were trying to cover their asses by denying that knowledge.

Points are taken .

I have a serious problem with people , in emails , writing "col angus said this " and "col angus doesnt want this " etc . It doesnt mean that he really said that ... or implied that ... etc .

I know Sandusky started the charity , but was there NOT a board on this charity . Joe was not on this board . Was it all "yes yes men" ... ? I thought I read that at one point after the 1999 investigation that they were notified ... why not someone there "step up" ..

it is all laid on JOE's lap , and i just find it insulting for a 80 yr old guy .... who people said couldnt even know the players names back in 1988 ...

Again - not to say he couldnt have done more follow up etc .... he could have . But to point blame at a guy who is dead ... to me .. is just pathetic .

I also think the NCAA fines are just wrong . Punishing all the people associated with the UNIV is just wrong ... they already are goin to pay out the yin yang for lawsuits etc ...

ColAngus said:

Points are taken .

I have a serious problem with people , in emails , writing "col angus said this " and "col angus doesnt want this " etc . It doesnt mean that he really said that ... or implied that ... etc .

I know Sandusky started the charity , but was there NOT a board on this charity . Joe was not on this board . Was it all "yes yes men" ... ? I thought I read that at one point after the 1999 investigation that they were notified ... why not someone there "step up" ..

it is all laid on JOE's lap , and i just find it insulting for a 80 yr old guy .... who people said couldnt even know the players names back in 1988 ...

Again - not to say he couldnt have done more follow up etc .... he could have . But to point blame at a guy who is dead ... to me .. is just pathetic .

I also think the NCAA fines are just wrong . Punishing all the people associated with the UNIV is just wrong ... they already are goin to pay out the yin yang for lawsuits etc ...

The Second Mile executive director declined to be interviewed. Counsel for the Second Mile told the Special Investigative Counsel, however, that the executive director told him that the executive director had a calendar entry for a meeting with Curley on March, 19, 2001. He also told counsel that during the executive director's meeting with Curley that Curley related that an unidentified person saw Sandusky in the locker room shower on campus with a boy and felt uncomfortable with the situation, and that Curley had discussed the issue with Sandusky and concluded that nothing inappropriate had occurred. According to Counsel for the Second Mile, Curley told the executive director, that "to avoid publicity issues," the University would not permit Sandusky to bring kids on campus. Curley also told the executive director that he was telling Second Mile so that the executive director could emphasize the issue to Sandusky.

The executive director later advised two Second Mile Trustees of the meeting, and they concluded the matter was a "non-incident for the Second Mile and there was no need to do anything further." He also talked to Sandusky, who admitted to showering with boys but nothing more. The executive director passed on Curley's advice on the prohibition against bringing kids on campus, and Sandusky responded that it applied only to the locker rooms. The executive director urged him to get the issues clarified.

Again, they were not told of the severity of the situation. They (Penn State) had concluded "nothing inappropriate had occurred". And the incidents were occuring on Penn State property, were being reported by Penn State employees, therefore, it was the responsibility of the heads of Penn State to "step up".

What about the College Board of Directors? All of this occured on school property. Not once did any of these men bring it to the Board of Directors attentions about the investigation in 1998, nor the allegations in 2001. It sounds as though they were trying to "pass the buck" to me. "Let's not deal with this. Let's put the responsibility of this in someone else's lap."

It is not all being laid in Joe's lap. Schultz, Curley, Spanier are all involved in this as well. Some are facing criminal charges themselves.

You mentioned that it was stated Joe couldn't even know the players names back in 1988, but in 2011, he could recall a conversation he had with McQueary in 2001 (10 years earlier).

Nobody is pointing the blame at Paterno, but people are stating that Paterno neglected his duties as Head Coach and that he was a part of the culture of Penn State that allowed this type of behavior to continue for years, and that he DID turn a blind eye. He is complicit in the continued abuse of these boys after they learned (without a doubt as it was eye witnessed - and there would be no reason to make this kind of an allegation unless there is truth to it), that the abuse had occurred.

I do not think the NCAA fines are wrong. You are talking about a culture within a university that allowed a very serious ongoing problem to occur, over and over again. If no sanctions were given to the university, what would be learned about this whole tragedy? "We can take care of issues internally that should be reported externally to the appropriate authorities and suffer no consequences when it comes to light."??? I honestly believe the NCAA fines are not steep enough.

[Edited 7/25/12 12:18pm]

The leave this in General Discussion but move space threads to Politics & Religion.

After looking at your last post - I kinda laughed - because i just thought wow its a great argument to NOT have some 70 yr old guy coaching ...

when you said :

Joe couldn't even know the players names back in 1988, but in 2011, he could recall a conversation he had with McQueary in 2001 (10 years earlier).

I thought that that was "part of the problem" ... when he was testifying ... he kinda sounded like ronald reagan on iran contra "i dont recall " etc ...

and that made him seem like he didnt care about the kids ... again - i would just say that if I was a high school football coach for 10 years I cant imagine the crap that you have to deal with ...

this guy was a college coach for 50 years !

while i do think he was NO saint ... i think it is unjust in some of the things that have been said about him ... Kids got hurt - that should NOT have gotten hurt - I do not think it was JOEPAs fault ...

ColAngus said:

After looking at your last post - I kinda laughed - because i just thought wow its a great argument to NOT have some 70 yr old guy coaching ...

when you said :

Joe couldn't even know the players names back in 1988, but in 2011, he could recall a conversation he had with McQueary in 2001 (10 years earlier).

I thought that that was "part of the problem" ... when he was testifying ... he kinda sounded like ronald reagan on iran contra "i dont recall " etc ...

and that made him seem like he didnt care about the kids ... again - i would just say that if I was a high school football coach for 10 years I cant imagine the crap that you have to deal with ...

this guy was a college coach for 50 years !

while i do think he was NO saint ... i think it is unjust in some of the things that have been said about him ... Kids got hurt - that should NOT have gotten hurt - I do not think it was JOEPAs fault ...

My comment was made in regards to one you had stated previously:

it is all laid on JOE's lap , and i just find it insulting for a 80 yr old guy .... who people said couldnt even know the players names back in 1988 ...

I was pointing out that you stating he couldn't even know the players names back in 1988 ... and yet in 2011 he could remember a conversation that took place 10 years previously? It seemed to me that the two statements do not seem to go together.

However, I have re-examined my thinking on that, and it is possible that Joe Pa was suffering from some dementia, or at the very least, short term memory loss. I do have clients now that cannot tell you what they had for breakfast, but they can remember a minor incident that occured 50 years ago. If this is the case, which we cannot know now since JoePa has died, then I'm not certain how admissible his testimony should be. But if this is true, then someone would have noticed his memory lapses and would have made a strong argument for that. Not even the family has stepped forward to state that Joe was suffering from any kind of dementia or memory loss. Therefore, I do not know how valid this argument would be.

But, imo, even if Joe were suffering from dementia or memory loss, that does not change the fact that the culture of this university, was such, that it allowed these children to continue to be abused, and the sanctions are still valid. It does not excuse Curley, Spanier, nor Schultz from their involvement in this case.

I do agree that some of the comments that have been geared toward Paterno were certainly uncalled for, "burn in hell", "just as guilty", but I do still contend that in covering their heads, (Paterno included) they were in essence covering for Sandusky. None of them are as guilty as Sandusky is, he is the one that ultimately commited this crime, but they did not go out of their ways to ensure that it never occured again or that any children were protected.

[Edited 7/26/12 14:56pm]

just read this ... and it was on my mind cus it really speaks to what I am getting at ...

I am not a huge PA STATE fan ... i mean .. i live in Pa ... and my sis went there ... but .. I have always kinda made fun of Joe Paterno etc .... and this is just kinda spoken like I would say it :(or want to say it )

“As a graduate of The Ohio State University, I never thought that I would be writing about anything that related to Penn State. But, I can no longer take the ignorance and lynch mob mentality of many of the media outlets, as well as the general populace. It has always amazed me that we (readers and listeners of mass media) have become so lazy that we swallow every morsel of so called news as gospel. Lest we forget that the media must sell their wares in order to remain in business. With the advent of ever evolving technology that task has become increasing more difficult. As a result, the media too have evolved. What used to be a respected profession, where journalistic integrity and the reporting of the facts were not only the norm, but were sacred and guarded, has now become a mission to remain relevant and profitable. Their integrity and reporting of the facts have often taken a back seat to the sensationalizing of some facet of the news. It’s no longer good enough to simply report the facts and allow the readers or listeners to form their own judgment or opinion. Many articles today are merely watered down editorials with morsels of the truth thrown in so one could call it a news article. I believe that the media are the most powerful people in the world. We have been led to believe, in fact brain washed in a sense, to accept the words of the media as an unbiased and fair representation of the facts. The Sandusky Sex Scandal, or as it’s better know the Penn State Sex Scandal… because the word “Sandusky” won’t sell as many papers or TV ads as “Penn State”, is a prime example of the media gone wrong. I continue to be amazed by the irrational comments from generally intelligent people. Their naive acceptance of the media’s portrayal of the students/athletes, as well as Joe Paterno and other officials at Penn State is very bothersome to me and it should be to you. For those of us who have actually read Louis Freeh’s report (which is the most comprehensive study about the Sandusky Sex Scandal) with an open mind, it must make you wonder about a number of things. One of the most basic tenets of the entire document has been largely ignored by media. The report clearly states that in 1998 an investigation took place regarding Sandusky and alleged misconduct with young boys. The District Attorney along with the police department and several state organizations conducted numerous interviews. School officials, parents and alleged victims were all questioned. The investigation was closed and no charges were filed. Sandusky should have been stopped in 1998. He wasn’t. The report went on to say that law enforcement and child welfare officials were ill equipped and not sufficiently trained to adequately recognize and handle adolescent sexual abuse. What? Why isn’t that the headline? Apparently, that won’t sell as many ads or newspapers. That one sentence shines a whole new light on this entire tragedy. If the professionals who are hired to serve and protect didn’t have the proper knowledge, training and education as it pertained to adolescent abuse, what makes everyone think that a football coach or academic officials should? However, not one media outlet picked up on that and reported the finding. Apparently, it wasn’t sensational enough. In 2001, having been through a Sandusky investigation just three years prior, Joe Paterno reported yet another incident to school officials. Knowing the result of the 1998 investigation, one might understand (not condone, but understand) why, after the initial report was filed, there was limited follow up on the part of Joe Paterno. There’s no doubt that Paterno and school officials made some horrendous decisions. But, so did the law enforcement personnel and state agencies who were supposed to be knowledgeable about pedophiles and their characteristics. I question why the media and many of you are holding a football coach and an administration to a higher standard than law enforcement and agencies whose job it is to protect all of us? Would you hold Child Protective Services, State Police or the District Attorney responsible if theNittany Lions lost a football game? Of course not. It’s irrational and idiotic. I’m not downplaying the acts of Sandusky. They were horrific! Further, I’m not defending anyone, but simply pointing out the fact that the mob is trying to condemn Penn State’s current students, athletes and officials for grievous acts committed 12 or 14 years ago. For the most part, today’s student body at Penn State were just getting out of diapers when these acts occurred. How is it rational or just for them to be punished? One final thought. During the same time frame of 12 to 14 years, the students at Penn State have raised and donated nearly $100 million dollars for research and a cure for pediatric cancer. Thousands of young lives have been saved or made better because of the students at Penn State. Let’s stop casting aspersions and not forget all of the good they have done. So, before you jump on the band wagon, perhaps you should know the facts and not just what the media want you to believe. I’m proud to be a Buckeye, but feel very sad for the victims, students and everyone who calls Happy Valley home.”

I've read the report, just as she (he) has, and let's look at her claims:

On May 4 (7:43am) the boy's mother called Alycia Chambers, a licensed State College psychologist who had been working her son, to see if she was "overreacting" to Sandusky's showering with her son. The psychologist assured the mother that she was not overreacting and told her to make a report to the authorities. The boy's mother called the University Police Department and reported the incident to Detective Ron Schreffler around 11:00am.

Okay, so the police in the report are related to the University Police, which again gets their funding through the college to remain active. No, they were probably not trained to recognize child abuse, as typically on a college campus there are not that many children present.

Around 11:30am, Det. Schreffler interviewed the boy. The boy told Schreffler what happened with Sandusky the previous evening, and added that a 10 year-old friend of his had been in a shower with Sandusky on another occasion where Sandusky similarly squeezed the friend.

Later that day, Chambers met with the boy who told her about the prior day's events and that he felt "like the luckiest kid in the world" to get to sit on the sidelines at Penn State football games. The boy said that he did not want to get Sandusky in "trouble", and that Sandusky must not have meant anything by his actions. The boy did not want anyone to talk wot Sandusky because he might not invite him to any more games. Chambers made a report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line and also consulted colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that "the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a 'loving,' 'special' relationship."

Ok, we now have a psychologist in State College involved, and her colleagues have stated that this does meet their definition of a pedophile grooming a boy. The boy told because he felt uncomfortable with the situation, he didn't tell because he wanted to get Sandusky in trouble. What happens next?

That afternoon Det. Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with the Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) about the allegation.

Here is where it gets a little sticky.

However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile - including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program,; the Second Mile's executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children's evaluations, and the initial referral sheet from Chambers indicated the case might involve a foster child).

Ok, so this first agency had a conflict of interest and could not be legally be involved in this case. It is likely that this agency had trained personnel in being able to identify abused children.

In light of these conflicts, the Department of Public Welfare (DPW) took over the case from CYS on May 5, 1998. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.

Ah, yes, an agency that is not trained in identifying abused children.

Det. Schreffler also contacted Karen Arnold, Centre County prosecutor in the District Attorney's office, to discuss the case. Schreffler had decided to call the prosecutor at the outset of the investigation so he did not "have to worry about Old Main sticking their nose in the investigation," which he knew from experience could occur. (Old Main is used to refer to University leaders).

So, Det. Schreffler knew that the University leaders would get involved in the investigation. This, to me, is the first indication that the university might not be above hiding key facts in order to protect the integrity of their university. But that is merely speculation. But at this point we have the Department of Public Welfare involved, campus police, a school psychologist who is working with the young boy, and the DA. So what happened?

On May 7, 1998, Chambers provided a copy of her written report to Det. Schreffler. Chambers said she was pleased with the response of the agencies involved, as the "gravity of the incidents seems to be well appreciated."

We have a report given to the campus police. While we don't know what that report states, I'm sure that it mentions the boy was sexually abused. So up until this point, everything is going the way it should be going. So where did it all go wrong?

On May 7, 1998, Lauro interviewed the boy's mother. According to Det. Schreffler's notes, Lauro had received copies of the boy's recorded statement, yet Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers' evaluation. Lauro said that if he "had seen [Chambers'] report, I would not have stopped the investigation," which he thought at the time fell into a "gray" area and involved possible "boundary" issues.

Whoa, so Lauro did not get a copy of the report that was given to Det. Schreffler, and therefore did not know the complete story. Hmm, it seems here is where it starts to fall apart.

Det. Schreffler had a discussion with Arnold that day as well. Arnold told Schreffler to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8 as part of DPW's investigation. Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.

So, Det. Schreffler didn't put the second psychological eval on hold as he was told to do. Not only that, the second counselor, had a conflict of interest because he provided counseling services for CYS (who had originally backed out because of their conflict of interest with the Second Mile).

During the meeting with Seasock the boy described the incident with Sandusky. Given that the boy did not feel forced to engage in any activity and did not voice discomfort to Sandusky, Seasock opined that "there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children." Seasock's report ruled out that the boy "had been placed in a situation where he was being 'groomed for future sexual victimization." Seasock recommended that someone speak with Sandusky about what is acceptable with young children and explained, "The intent of the conversation with Mr. Sandusky is not to cast dispersion upon his actions but to help him stay out of such gray area situations in the future."

But what about the first report by the psychologist, the one that was given to Det. Schreffler, that probably outlined that the boy had been abused and that Sandusky was grooming children? The one that was given to the campus police?

Interesting detail:

Seasock served as an independent contractor at Penn State from 2000 to 2006. His first payment from Penn State was made on April 20, 2000 for $1,236.86. His total payments were $11,448.86. The Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence to suggest that these payments had any relation to Seasock's work on the Sandusky case in 1998. According to the Second Mile's counsel, there was no business relationship between Seasock and the Second Mile.

No, but there was a relationship between Seasock and a company that Second Mile had several contracts with. And isn't it interesting that Seasock would begin to work for Penn State less than a year after he interviewed this child and came to the conclusions that he did.

So, the police investigating it are campus police. You have the D.A. involved. You have two conflicting reports by a psychologist who worked in State College and a counselor who had ties to CYS (which in turn had ties to the Second Mile, which in turn had ties to Penn State), and the counselor that found no evidence of abuse went to work for Penn State less than a year after he made that report. Now what?

Well, on two different occasions (May 13th and May 19th) the police were able to covertly listen in on Sandusky's conversation with the boy's mother. On May 13th Sandusky asked the boy's mother whether he should leave the boy alone and the mother replied that would be best and Sandusky apologized. On May 19th (at the direction of the police)...

the mother asked Sandusky about the bear hug in the shower and whether he'd touched the boys' private parts while they hugged. Sandusky said, "I don't think so ... maybe." He also said that he had showered with other boys before, but denied any "sexual feelings" when he hugged her son. He admitted telling the boy that he loved him. Sandusky asked to speak with her son and the mother replied that she did not feel that was a good idea as her son was confused and she did not want Sandusky to attend any of the boy's baseball games. Sandusky responded, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Did the campus police question Sandusky after this? Nope. Not at all. But here is where the report says:

The law enforcement officers did not question Sandusky at this time. Had the officers been better trained in the investigation of child sexual abuse they would have interrogated Sandusky directly after his confrontation with the boy's mother. A timely interview with Sandusky may have elicited candid responses such as the identification of other victims.

Now, it's the D.A.'s turn:

Sometime between May 27 and June 1, the local District Attorney declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was "severely hampered" by Seasock's report.

But what about the other report? The report given to the Penn State campus police Det. Schreffler??? Where did it go? Why was it not given to the D.A.? Why was the D.A. only given the report by the counselor who had ties with the CYS who had contracts with the Second Mile who in turn was associated with Penn State??? Why only the counselor who would go on to gain a contract with Penn State 11 months later? And why only the counselor who had reported 'no sexual abuse'?

Campus police then interview Sandusky on June 1, 1998. Det. Schreffler and Det. Lauro told Sandusky during the interview they could not determine if a sexual assault occurred. No notes or records exist that show whether they consulted the D.A. during or after the interview and Lauro stated that it wasn't until Schreffler told him that there wasn't anything to the case that he closed his investigation. He also stated that he never spoke with Schreffler about whether improper actions took place between Sandusky and the boy. Schreffler's file notes state that Lauro agreed that no sexual assault occurred.

So those are the actions of the outside agencies involved in the case. As you can see, these agencies had close ties with the university. And there was often conflict of interest with the agencies amongst each other and/or with Penn State. The police involved in the case were campus police and therefore had a large conflict of interest. The counselor who stated no abuse had occurred, went to work for Penn State several months later. The D.A. disappeared and has been declared dead.

Their involvements are from the dates of May 4, 1998 through, essentially, June 1, 1998.

What about the college leaders during this time?

It is not known how Schultz learned of the incident involving Sandusky, but it is clear that he knew of it by the time he attended a meeting about it at 5:00pm on May 4, 1998.

So campus officials knew about it from the beginning.

Other notes written by Schultz and contemporaneous records pertaining to the matter indicate that then - University Police Department Chief Thomas Harmon regularly informed Schultz of the investigation's progress. In fact, when the case began, Harmon told Schreffler that he wanted to be kept updated on the case so he could send "everything up the flag pole" and advise Schultz.

And here is what Schultz's notes date of May 4, 1998 (prior to the investigation beginning had to say):

"a woman reported that her 11 1/2 yr old son who had been involved with the Second Mile was taken by "Jerry" to the football locker rooms; that taped police interview reflected "Behavior - at best inappropriate @ worst sexual improprieties;" the conduct was "At min - Poor Judgment;" that Sandusky and the child were in the shower, and Sandusky, "came up behind & gave him a bear hug - said he would squeeze guts out - all;" and that the boy's ten-year-old friend "claims same thing went on with him." The notes conclude with the words "Critical issue - contact w genitals? Assuming same experience w the second boy? Not criminal." (emphasis added is mine)

Wait! What!?! The investigation has not even been conducted yet. It has not even been truly reported to the proper authorities yet, any of the outside agencies involved with the case, and Schultzs' notes state "Not criminal"???????

Nah, I think the "outside" agencies, which certainly should hold some of the responsibility, had their hands tied right from the very beginning. It is not clear whatever happened to the psychologists' notes who had determined there was pedophile grooming occurring, and Det. Schreffler should be held accountable for that. Interesting to me how, of both of those reports from the counselors, the one that gets turned over to the outside agencies are the one that reports "no abuse". This falls on the college, the campus police, the university leaders. It is hard to make any kind of determination in the case if the information you are being fed is erroneous and incomplete and when you have an agency involved that is not trained to recognize child abuse (DPW) and they are being hand-fed information that is at best, incomplete, you can't hold them accountable. They could only go on the information they were being given by the campus police, who again depends upon Penn State to continue functioning on their campus.

While I agree with the writer of your article that the media is sensationalizing this, I do not agree with her assessment about the rest. The quotes I've posted above come from the Freeh report.

[Edited 7/28/12 16:08pm]