Subscribe via RSS Feed

Ten-year old boy sodomized by former football coach; head coach and athletic director cover it up

[ 148 ] November 5, 2011 |

University president (who did nothing when fed an obviously whitewashed version of these events at the time) finds this “troubling,” but still has “full confidence” in the coach and the AD. Some questions:

(1) What are the chances that Sandusky’s unexpected sudden “retirement” in 1999, at the age of 55, had nothing to do with his apparent history of raping children whom he acquired access to through his charitable foundation?

(2) Why does Tim Curley still have a job this afternoon?

Much more here.

(3) Why are so many major American institutions apparently run by sociopaths?

Jerry Sandusky’s rap sheet.

Grand jury findings.

Comments (148)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. wengler says:

    Time for Penn State to clean house and hope that the liability doesn’t hit 8 figures.

    I guess we’ll see if college athletics is as worthy of exemption as the Catholic Church.

  2. M. Bouffant says:

    (3): The institutions themselves are sociopathic? Sociopathy is a feature, not an insect?

    One more question: When will any of these buffoons, from the Catholics to whatever, simply realize that covering up is inevitably worse for them & their institutions than dealing w/ whatever horror they’re tryig to deny? Especially now, in the age of the Internet, the 24-hr. news cycle, & less media reticence to talk about disgusting stuff that would (if covered at all) have been euphemised in previous eras.

    • wengler says:

      I dunno, if I were to guess I would say most cover-ups are successful.

      The problem here is that the people in charge didn’t seem to give a shit about a kid getting anally raped. They cared much more about their institution and their good buddy doing to raping. Of course allowing the raping to continue and claim more victims.

      If this were one of them unionized elementary schoolteachers who failed to report this, they would be going to prison.

      • John says:

        The Athletic Director may indeed by going to prison, no?

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, but 8 years later I think a conviction with prison time is unlikely.

          • I don’t.

            Priests, plural, have gone to prison for older crimes than that.

            • L2P says:

              I think that the priests who have been prosecuted were the actual perps, not those involved in coverups. I’m not aware that any priests were prosecuted under an accomplice or conspiracy theory, or for a failure to report crime.

              In most states, the statutes were lifted for very specific criminal allegations. I don’t know what Pennsylvania’s law says, so it’s possible the statute remains open for failure to report. Seems unlikely, though. I think it’s pretty unlikely these facts would get you to conspiracy or aiding and abetting, although there’s a lot left in the dark about what these guys did (or didn’t do).

  3. Jim Lynch says:

    The grad assistant who witnessed the rape ran away, and proceeded to call.. his father?!! Jee-zuz. He didn’t try to help the boy? He didn’t call the cops? No one called the cops? I’d say that qualifies as a “blemish” on Paterno’s storied career. And by blemish, I mean that will be the first thing I’ll recall about the man whenever his name is ever again mentioned.

    • Chris G. says:

      Well, I’d like to imagine that if I’d walked in on that, I would have yelled, “Get your penis out of that boy, you monster!” and given him a good thrashing, but odds are I would have freaked out and bolted too. The power balance was certainly not in the grad student’s favor, as if it ever is.

      But beyond that, yeah. The first responsibility of the school was to call the police and sort this out right quick. It’s clear where their priorities are, and that should be something that people should keep in mind when dealing with Penn State.

      “Penn State: If we like you, we’ll turn a blind eye.”

      • Scott Lemieux says:

        I can understand the grad student being scared. What’s amazing is that his supervisors did nothing about it. I’m glad that they were charged.

      • Jim Lynch says:

        The assistant’s running from a child in the process of being raped transcended being merely chickenshit. But that neither he, or any other adult in this sordid episode then saw fit to inform the police is inexcusable. The whole rotten lot of them are lucky they’re not under indictment. I know I’d be disqualified from sitting on any jury called to pass judgement on them.

        • Ed says:

          The grad student’s failure of nerve in failing to interfere with the rape in progress is understandable if not excusable. Many people would have run away. (It’s still running away. Criminy, he just left that poor kid in there.) That he did nothing thereafter isn’t excusable.The chief responsibility lies with his supervisors but he’s still culpable.

          Although given the advice he got from the paternal unit one understands why he wasn’t a tower of moral strength in this situation.

          • That he did nothing thereafter

            He didn’t do “nothing.” He reported it to his boss, then went back and got grilled by his boss’s boss.

            It may not have been sufficient, but it wasn’t “nothing,” either.

          • David Nieporent says:

            The grad student’s failure of nerve in failing to interfere with the rape in progress is understandable if not excusable. Many people would have run away. (It’s still running away. Criminy, he just left that poor kid in there.)

            By the way, people keep calling him a “grad student,” as if he’s a 23-year old English lit masters candidate. He was not a “grad student”; he was a “graduate assistant.” That’s the same position Sandusky had after he graduated — it’s basically a low-level football assistant coach, on a possible official coaching track. It presumably means he was a football player in college, so he’s not some frail guy. And he was 28 freaking years old — old enough to do a little more than call his daddy.

            • Paul Campos says:

              He was the starting quarterback and co-captain of the 1997 PSU team. He’s about 6’2″ 200 pounds.

            • Ed says:

              By the way, people keep calling him a “grad student,” as if he’s a 23-year old English lit masters candidate. He was not a “grad student”; he was a “graduate assistant.”

              Thank you for the correction. That was careless of me. This was no kid (not that 23 would constitute kid status, either).

              He didn’t do “nothing.” He reported it to his boss, then went back and got grilled by his boss’s boss.

              Scary stuff, indeed. (I might give him some more rope if it was the janitor getting grilled by his boss.)

              • mpowell says:

                That moment is gut check time for a person. You would not imagine there was much physical risk there, but his career (as much as it is) is certainly on the line. But it is likely that he could have stopped a terrible crime in process and chose not to. I don’t really understand how a person could sleep at night after that.

    • Curmudgeon says:

      Take a guess what impact being on the public record as a whistle-blower who damaged the reputation of an institution by attracting attention to illegal behavior would have on any grad student’s funding, grades, and future recommendations.

      If you guess ‘nothing bad’ then I have some swamp prime Florida real estate to sell you at rock bottom prices.

      People who are little more then slave labor cannot be expected to turn in their masters.

      • Jim Lynch says:

        “Take a guess what impact being on the public record as a whistle-blower who damaged the reputation of an institution by attracting attention to illegal behavior would have on any grad student’s funding, grades, and future recommendations”.

        Any person that would calculate in terms of career, rather than instinctively rally to the defense of a child being raped, is finished as far as being a human being is concerned, no matter how long they live or “prosper”.

        • Calculate? The guy was probably in shock and terrified.

          Jim, have you ever read those comments after a mass shooting from gun nuts, talking about what they would have totally done if they had been there? Hiya, kapow kapow!

          You don’t know.

          • Jim Lynch says:

            Joe: I don’t know what?

            You dare equate mass slaughter with the rape of a single child? What the hell is wrong with you?

            You and I are different people.

            • You don’t know what you would have done in the shoes of someone facing a situation you’ve never had to deal with, that’s what.

              You dare equate mass slaughter with the rape of a single child? What the hell is wrong with you?

              I haven’t the foggiest idea what this is supposed to mean, and no. I think you’ve taken leave of your rational facilities.

              You and I are different people.

              Indeed; I appear to be a great deal less reflexively certain of my own infallible courage and awesomeness is circumstances I’ve never experienced, and a great deal less eager to throw around righteous self-congratulations as a result.

              Very different people indeed. Kook.

              • You dare equate mass slaughter with the rape of a single child? What the hell is wrong with you?

                Seriously, loony toons, what is this even supposed to mean? I can’t even tell if your little tantrum stems from imagining I’ve said mass slaughter was more or less egregious.

                • Jim Lynch says:

                  Wow. You are a sad case, Joe.

                • Writing something like this doesn’t make your babbling any less nonsensical.

                • Does the pony have any tricks beyond expressing his sense of superiority, or is this it?

                • Furious Jorge says:

                  Jim, what are you talking about? Joe never equated those acts in any way. He was simply saying that while everyone likes to imagine themselves heroically doing the right thing in a time of crisis, you never know what you’d do until you actually find yourself in that situation. And for a lot of people, their actual reactions are, um, disappointing.

                • blue duck says:

                  It does not take much courage to call 9-1-1, for fuck’s sake

                • mpowell says:

                  My response here is that if you have a guy running around shooting people, fear for your life is a pretty powerful response. In this case you have a significantly older man an a mid 20′s ex football QB. The fear factor is not in the same ballpark.

            • dangermouse says:

              You dare equate mass slaughter with the rape of a single child? What the hell is wrong with you?

              Like man honestly I think it is probably okay to equate those things.

              They are both hella terrible things, you know? IDK if I’m gonna spend a lot of time worrying whether one is insufficiently equal in terribleness to be equated to the other.

              …I mean you could maybe say that Joe is being a little overgenerous to this dude who didn’t do anything about this rape because like if someone whips out a gun and starts firing into a crowd that you are in then running away is probably the thing you oughtta in fact be doing which is a whole lot different than like seeing a rape and then your immediate thought is “whoa if I tell that guy to get his dick out of that 10 year old’s butthole it might be bad for my career”.

              But you’re not really saying that man.

      • Doc Gargunza says:

        Take a guess what being anally raped at the age of ten by an adult you had complete trust in and who was in a position of authority does to the rest of your life, and what impact it has on your family.

    • Tybalt says:

      “You just don’t understand football, Marge.”

  4. KC45s says:

    Why are so many major American institutions apparently run by sociopaths?

    Amen. One guess: many sociopaths are smart enough to imbed themselves in institutions that then have to cover for them out of financial and other concerns.

    This is of course distinct from institutions like politics and finance that reward sociopathic behavior. Though the NCAA does plenty of that, too.

    Just an appalling case. Unbelievable even after years of hearing about Catholic Church-related crimes of the same nature.

    • TT says:

      Institutions of all kinds, even the more noble and selfless-seeming institutions, offer power and privilege to the select few who will do what(ever) it takes to climb to the top. When they reach the top, or at least a comfortable rung, there can be extraordinarily powerful incentives to not do anything that may damage the edifice or bring it down. Whether it’s a religious, educational, military, or political institution (to say nothing of the warping incentives present in the business and finance worlds), those who preside over them often seem to end up confusing their own welfare and that of their compatriots with the welfare and mission of the institution as a whole.

      The tough question seems to be if these sorts of “sociopaths” have this kind of deep personality flaw to begin with, or if the power of the institution gradually bends them to its will. Either way, the answer is profoundly unpleasant.

      • chris says:

        It’s not that tough a question. The people most likely to claw their way to the top of organizations are the people who very strongly value having power over other people, which is technically known as a “social dominance orientation” but not that far from the non-technical everyday meaning of “sociopath”.

  5. Curmudgeon says:

    American institutions are run by sociopaths because the only true American value at the institutional level is making money by any means possible.

    Sociopaths are very, very good at accumulating money by taking it from others.

  6. Ah,good old Yahoo Sports. Never missing a chance to make their bones with a nice college football scandal.

    Paterno was 75 at the time and his advancing age and the limits of his participation in the program are well known. That simply can’t be used as an excuse. Positions of authority come with great responsibility and advancing age does not excuse someone of merely accepting the plaudits of success while avoiding the more difficult duties of the position.

    Obviously I don’t know everything that happened, so perhaps Paterno did do something he should be punished for, but it seems to me that being 75 years old and having declining responsibilities in the job is actually a pretty decent defense of Paterno’s conduct, assuming he promptly informed the AD of what he knew of the matter. And that last sentence is just rank yellow journalism. Whether Paterno is getting too many plaudits or not, everyone knows he’s been largely a figurehead in the position for the better part of the last decade, with his chief assistants doing most of the heavy lifting.

    • Jonathan says:

      but it seems to me that being 75 years old and having declining responsibilities in the job is actually a pretty decent defense of Paterno’s conduct,

      Would you feel the same way if it was you or your child that had been raped?

      What you’re doing is rape apologetics. It is how a culture that supports and empowers rapists perpetuates itself. You are complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone. The attitude you’re espousing is exactly the attitude that allows such systematic rape to occur over such a prolonged period. I can’t condemn you enough. You’re just lucky I have yet to learn how to punch people in the face over standard TCP/IP.

      • You are complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone.

        OK, that’s a little nuts.

        • Jonathan says:

          It’s called being an accomplice after the fact. If somebody commits a crime, even if you didn’t know about that crime at the time, and you knowingly aid them in evading Justice, you are guilty of the crime they committed. As I wrote, there is a culture that aids, abets, and encourages further rapes. By engaging in rape apologetics, you act to aid rapist from escaping Justice for they’re crimes and encouraging future rapists to rape with impunity. Rape doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is a larger, cultural context that allows it to occur. Anyone who participates in that culture is guilty of the crimes of that culture.

          • No, Jonathon, writing a comment on a blog thread is not “called being an accomplice after the fact.”

            Even if you disagree with it.

            You didn’t write that Joe Paterno was “complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone.” You told blog commenter “Brien Jackson,” who wrote a comment you didn’t like:

            You (Blog Commenter Brien Jackson) are complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone.

            No, he’s not. That’s nuts. Writing something you don’t like does not make someone complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone. Even if your reasons for not liking what he wrote are really, really convincing to you, that’s nuts.

            And just as an FYI, Tuff Gai of the Internet who likes to spout off about punching people when he’s knows he’s perfectly safe from having to do anything about it: accusing someone who’s never raped a child, never had anything to do with the rape of a child, of being complicit in a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with, is a really good way to get your ass kicked in the real world.

            But I suspect you know that in the real world. So, dial it back here, too.

            • Malaclypse says:

              No, Jonathon, writing a comment on a blog thread is not “called being an accomplice after the fact.”

              He was talking about the grad student, who probably is, legally, an accomplice after the fact.

              And you are beating up on people who are really really upset about the thought of kids getting raped. That’s being an asshole, in case you didn’t notice.

              • John says:

                No, he was clearly talking about Brien:

                What you’re doing is rape apologetics. It is how a culture that supports and empowers rapists perpetuates itself. You are complicit in the rape of those children, and in effect the rape of anyone. The attitude you’re espousing is exactly the attitude that allows such systematic rape to occur over such a prolonged period. I can’t condemn you enough. You’re just lucky I have yet to learn how to punch people in the face over standard TCP/IP.

                Nothing about the graduate assistant whatever.

                • Jonathan says:

                  Yes, I was talking specifically about Brien. Again, rape doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is a specific cultural context in which it takes place, referred to as “rape culture” in feminist theory. It is that culture which allows rapists to rape with impunity and go largely unpunished. Participation in that culture makes one culpable to the rapes that occur inside that culture. Rape apologetics, which is what Brien was doing, are a major part of rape culture. And just like a fence or a person who buys stolen property are culpable for the theft, even though they never actually stole something, so too are rape apologists, which Brien is, culpable for rapes.

                • mark f says:

                  I used to be a feminist, but ever since someone on the internet wondered about the true extent of Joe Paterno’s culpability I’ve been a serial rapist.

              • He was talking about the grad student, who probably is, legally, an accomplice after the fact.

                No, he was not. How did you manage to miss that?

                And you are beating up on people who are really really upset about the thought of kids getting raped.

                Holy crap, get off your high horse, asshole! You think there is anybody on this thread who isn’t really really upset about the thought of kids being raped? What you just did right there – THAT’S called being an asshole.

                Tell you what – learn to read, get your facts right, drop the “objectively pro-rape” slurs, and I might regain a modicum of respect for you. Because you just completely and utterly shit the bed.

              • Furious Jorge says:

                He was talking about the grad student, who probably is, legally, an accomplice after the fact.

                Nope. Clearly was directed at the commenter.

            • Jonathan says:

              And just as an FYI, Tuff Gai of the Internet who likes to spout off about punching people when he’s knows he’s perfectly safe from having to do anything about it: accusing someone who’s never raped a child, never had anything to do with the rape of a child, of being complicit in a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with, is a really good way to get your ass kicked in the real world.

              I say such things to people’s faces all the time. I consider it my ethical duty to do so and I don’t let fear of conflict or violence stop me. If you’re in the Chicagoland area, let me know. I’ll come say them to your face as well.

              As for the rest, that’s covered in a reply slightly further down this thread.

          • David Nieporent says:

            It’s called being an accomplice after the fact. If somebody commits a crime, even if you didn’t know about that crime at the time, and you knowingly aid them in evading Justice, you are guilty of the crime they committed.

            Although I agree with Joe that your argument appears to be directed at the poster, even if it’s directed at the graduate assistant, it’s wrong.

            Mere failure to report a crime does not constitute being an accessory. In most cases it isn’t a crime at all; in the cases where it is (for those who are “mandatory reporters,” which is pretty much limited to crimes of child abuse), one is still not guilty of being an accessory; one is guilty of failing-to-report.

            The graduate assistant, even if he is a mandatory reporter (which I doubt), did report the crime, even if we can agree that he wasn’t as aggressive about taking action as he should have been.

            It’s true that actually taking steps to help the person escape arrest, prosecution, or punishment is a crime — but that requires active steps, not mere failure to report.

            • Jonathan says:

              I wasn’t talking about failing to report a crime, even though that is despicable. I was talking about rape apologizing. Which is why I wrote, “What you’re doing is rape apologetics.” Cowardice is a separate matter. I was only speaking towards Brien’s rape apologetics. Namely his statement that “it seems to me that being 75 years old and having declining responsibilities in the job is actually a pretty decent defense of Paterno’s conduct,” which is letting someone off the hook for directly allowing the rape of children to continue to uphold the reputation of an institution he worked for. That’s rape apologetics, and it is unequivocally wrong.

      • What you’re doing is rape apologetics.

        Joe Paterno isn’t accused of raping anybody. He isn’t even accused of having witnessed a rape and not reporting it.

        Which means that the term “rape apologetics” doesn’t really apply here. Brien is “apologizing” for Paterno for reporting to his boss that someone else reported that a rape occured, and then letting his boss deal with the report.

        • Malaclypse says:

          If you substitute “rape” with “murder,” it would be obvious that “let the boss deal with it” is only part of the job description if you work for the Mafia.

          • …which is completely irrelevant to the topic, which was whether discussing Paterno’s culpability is “rape apologetics.”

            This is two comments now where you’ve completely lost the thread because your VERY STRONG FEELINGS interfered with basic reading comprehension. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to chill out for a little while before you comment again.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Actually, I must admit to not remotely understanding how the fact that Paterno has less influence in constructing the game plans somehow absolves him of responsibility for declining to go to the authorities when he had credible evidence that someone associated with the team was sexually assaulting children.

      • Pinko Punko says:

        And you will see in the details that Sandusky was pushed out much earlier than this incident due to being caught showering with kids and a partial admission of maybe touching some kids privates. This is the baseline of what was known to Joe Pa when the eyewitness account was told to him in 2002. Now Sandusky isn’t officially with the team here, so why the EFF were the allegations passed up the Penn State chain? Ok, the grad student tells his dad, and dad says “we’ve got to tell Joe”- holy crap- I mean the only way I could comprehend this is to think that “we’ll tell Joe and Joe will come with us and then we’ll go to the police” but what happened was something like let’s “tell my boss, thanks?” Joe Paterno will not be the Penn State football coach in two weeks. I feel like the shoes have not yet dropped.

      • Well, he might be culpable. Like I said, I obviously don’t know what everyone did and didn’t do, and obviously he ought to be questioned about the matter. I’m just pointing out that Yahoo is openly salivating at the chance to exploit the event to try to take down Paterno. And to that extent, Wentzel’s language is also a bit bizarre, in that it implies Paterno’s behavior would be okay if he were merely a “normal” 75 year old, and didn’t have the figurehead job. And that’s sort of reinforced by the fact that Wentzel’s righteous outrage on behalf of the victim doesn’t extend to calling out the grad assistant and/or his father for not calling the police either.

        But yes, Paterno may have done something wrong, in which case he rightly ought to be strung up. I’m just not going to applaud an effort to do so led by Yahoo, given their recent track record. They care fuck all about the victim, beyond the fact that they can use him to potentially put another head on their wall. And then they’ll use it to add credibility to their next “OMG SOMEONE GAVE THESE COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYERS MONEY!!!!!11111!!!!1!” story.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          Are you seriously arguing that the grad assistant and Paterno are equally powerful figures in the community? It’s completely appropriate to hold Paterno to a higher standard. And you still haven’t explained why Paterno delegating more coaching activity to assistants in any way mitigates the obvious moral and possible legal responsibility the most powerful person in the athletic department had to report credible evidence of sexual assault to the authorities. Your original argument was a just a non-sequitur.

          Also, unlike “oh no, somebody bought a player a pair of shoes,” this is an actual scandal.

          • Perhaps I’m mistaken, but I was under the impression that Paterno’s lack of involvement went far beyond that, and that he basically just walks the sidelines during games, does press conferences, shows up for a bit at practice, and raises money. Also, since there’s been grand jury involvement, I assume Paterno’s involvement has been investigated by law enforcement, though I certainly don’t know that.

            “Are you seriously arguing that the grad assistant and Paterno are equally powerful figures in the community?”

            Of course not, but on the other hand, what does that matter? If I personally witness a rape tomorrow and don’t report it to the police, do I escape moral culpability because I’m a relative nobody? And the power dynamic would seem to be balanced out at least a little bit by the fact that the grad assistant is the one who actually witnessed the assault, whereas Paterno is reporting hearsay.

            In any case, law enforcement seems to be taking this seriously, and Paterno can presumably be sued if he acted inappropriately (and should be). I’m not saying anyone should get off with covering up child rape. I just find Yahoo Sports detestable as well. Wentzell’s glee at getting to exploit the assault for the purpose of going after Joe Paterno is palpable.

            Or, in other words, everyone sucks.

        • David Nieporent says:

          Well, [Paterno] might be culpable. Like I said, I obviously don’t know what everyone did and didn’t do,

          Don’t we know that he didn’t call the police? Doesn’t that make him morally, if not legally, culpable?

          Even if he thought that his “boss” — and that’s rather a misnomer, since Paterno was more powerful — was going to handle that responsibility, he obviously knew in short order that his boss had not, in fact, done so. What kind of person would hear about something like that, file a report, and then when nothing happened simply go on his merry way without following up?

          I’m just pointing out that Yahoo is openly salivating at the chance to exploit the event to try to take down Paterno.

          I believe this is known as “shooting the messenger.” Given the alleged crimes here, and the immoral if not illegal conduct of the other people involved here, complaining about the guy reporting it shows a rather strong lack of perspective on your part.

          They care fuck all about the victim,

          Well, hey, that would be tough; thanks to Paterno et al., we don’t even know who the victim is! But assuming that their motives are purely to take down Paterno, as you argue without any evidence — so what? Seriously, you really are focusing on the wrong thing here.

          • Scott Lemieux says:

            And in addition, you have yet to make an actual argument for your proposition that the more Paterno delegates day-to-day football responsibilities, the less his moral responsibilities. Why?

            • The delegation of his football responsibilities isn’t just a management practice, but also 1) a reflection of his mental state, and 2) a long-ingrained practice that he has come to depend on for dealing with decisions, which 3) has had the effect of making him increasingly dependent upon the judgement of the very people he entrusted with this decision.

          • What kind of person would hear about something like that, file a report, and then when nothing happened simply go on his merry way without following up?

            In this case, an old man whose mental decline had long since led him, and those around him, to transfer responsibility out of his hands, and who has become ever-more dependent upon these people – literally, these exact people – to make the decisions that are formally his.

            Paterno hears, for the 5000th time, these men responding to an issue he brought up with “We’ll handle it, Joe,” and then he sees them doing so, and then, for the 5000th time, he lets them go ahead and puts it out of his mind. It’s an ingrained pattern, a way of coping, that Paterno has become increasingly dependent upon, and that has worked out very well for years, up until then. I agree that this doesn’t get Paterno entirely off the hook, but I can all-too-easily understand how someone who isn’t a monster, in that situation, could have done that.

            • Paul Campos says:

              You think Paterno didn’t know about the 1998 investigation? The chances of that are zero. I’d say the chances that Paterno personally quashed the 1998 investigation (13 years ago!) in return for a promise to force Sandusky to resign are pretty damn high.

              This business of letting dear old JoePa off the hook because he’s just an addled old man is disgusting.

              • What does anything you wrote have to do with what I wrote, except your VERY HIGH DUDGEON that I dared to write it?

                Paterno knew about the older case, so therefore, what? He isn’t in mental decline? Someone’s mental status isn’t relevant to his mental and legal culpability? He, and the people around him, haven’t put him into a rut where he lets those around him handle his responsibilities?

                All of these VERY TIGHTLY WOUND DENUNCIATIONS of how awful I am seem to have in common a complete lack of any rational thought. As if shouting “Disgusting! Wow!” is an argument.

                • Paul Campos says:

                  Have you ever asked yourself why everybody constantly misunderstands your posts?

                • They don’t.

                  It’s only a few of the dimmer bulbs.

                  Have a good one, Ringo.

                • Mrs Tilton says:

                  Paul & other LGMers,

                  in a matter that is OT to the post but not to this comments thread, have you noticed that Crooked Timber have recently become more aggressive about dropping the banhammer on belligerent commenters who fill up every thread with bellowings about how they are right and everybody else is stupid? That’s a model other bloggers might consider adopting.

            • Hogan says:

              When most people get too old and infirm to handle their job duties, they retire (sometimes they jump. sometimes they’re pushed). The fact tha Paterno is exempted from such norms is a big part of the problem here.

            • Modulo Myself says:

              It’s fairly monstrous to end up being a person who has to worry about their legacy in coaching the game of football being demolished by their extreme culpability in a case of serial rape and abuse.

            • djw says:

              If Paterno really is experiencing the sort of age related dementia creating a diminished capacity in the legally relevant sense of the term, and has been for a decade or more (something you nor I have any way of knowing), I’m sure he’ll be able to afford a defense attorney who is fully capable of making this case on his behalf. But that’s the sort of thing that might reasonably be introduced and argued at trial or considered in a plea bargain negotiation, not a pre-emptive defense against legal liability.

              • The grand jury and prosecutor seem to disagree with you, djw.

                Prosecutors, cops, and grand juries take relevant facts about individual culpability into account all the time when deciding who to go after and who not to.

                • djw says:

                  Right: I was operating with what has apparently an incorrect understanding of the mandatory reporting laws earlier.

                  Still, your claims about the level of degradation of Paterno’s mental state are highly speculative, to say the least and I’ve got no idea why you’re so confident in your long-distance, non-professional, indirect diagnosis of Paterno’s mental state.

            • Scott Lemieux says:

              There’s a huge difference between “not being in the mental and physical condition to handle the immense rigors of coaching a major NCAA football program” and “not understanding that credible reports of sexual assault should be reported to the authorities.” If anyone has evidence that Paterno had reached the latter state in 2003 let’s see it; if not, the precise level of his control over the football team is beside the point.

              • “not understanding that credible reports of sexual assault should be reported to the authorities.”

                He DID report it to the authorities – to the authorities identified in the state mandatory reporting law.

                If anyone has evidence that Paterno had reached the latter state in 2003 let’s see it; if not, the precise level of his control over the football team is beside the point.

                You know who has seen a great deal more relevant information about Paterno’s culpability than us, Scott? The grand jury that indicted other people, and not him.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  Again, I’m talking about moral, not legal, culpability here. Unless he lied to the authorities I don’t see how Paterno would be guilty of a crime regardless of his mental capacity. This doesn’t change the fact that his failure to inform the police was immoral, and certainly whether he’s still coming up with defensive schemes is beside the point.

                • and certainly whether he’s still coming up with defensive schemes is beside the point.

                  OK, we’re still pretending that his role in football operations tells us nothing about his mental state?

                  Or are we pretending that his mental stats is irrelevant to his moral culpability?

                • Hogan says:

                  If you can’t do your job, you step aside. If you don’t and you fuck up, it’s on you. It’s also on your employer, but that doesn’t make it not on you.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  As David said below, several years later he’s still able to show up for work and give perfectly coherent answers at press conferences. As far as I can tell, there’s no reason whatsoever to believe that he wasn’t capable of understanding that sexual predators should be reported to legal authorities. I don’t think the fact that he no longer spends 16-hour days watching film is at all relevant; it’s not a very high bar we’re talking about here.

                • As Paul said below, several years later he’s still able to show up for work and give perfectly coherent answers at press conferences.

                  This is a pretty shallow understanding of age-related mental decline and dependency. Ooh, he’s perky in interviews? All right then.

                  I guess we can go home. The development over years in which the elderly man handed off more and more responsibility is utterly irrelevant to making a judgement about a situation in which he handed off responsibility, because he doesn’t shit himself in softball interviews.

                  Boy, that was easy.

                  I don’t think the fact that he no longer spends 16-hour days watching film is at all relevant

                  Yes, that’s it: he doesn’t spend 16 hour days at work. That’s all. This has nothing to do with his mental state. I hear he just doesn’t like to miss Jeopardy.

                  Your willingness to look at the facts squarely and not spin them to get the results you want is inspiring.

                • mark f says:

                  FWIW,

                  The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reported Saturday that a source close to the investigation said Paterno [will] testify against Sandusky at trial.

                  So questions about his mental competence seem far fetched. Also FWIW Michael Berube has commented several times here that stories of Paterno’s diminished role as head coach have been overstated. In the interest of fairness, the AG says Paterno behaved appropriately in his handling of the matter. I fall on the moral monster side, however, which is a shame because Penn State was always my favorite.

                  Between the branch article and this I don’t think I’ll ever watch another NCAA football game.

                • Scott Lemieux says:

                  Yup. If he has the mental capacity to testify at a trial, he certainly had the mental capacity 10 years ago to report a sexual predator to legal authorities.

            • David Nieporent says:

              In this case, an old man whose mental decline had long since led him, and those around him, to transfer responsibility out of his hands, and who has become ever-more dependent upon these people – literally, these exact people – to make the decisions that are formally his.

              This was ten years ago. If he was so senile then that he wasn’t aware of what was going on, he’d be in a nursing home or dead by now. But he still manages to show up every week, to make other appearances, to do interviews. He may have physically slowed down; he may have mentally slowed down. But he’s not a propped up corpse from Weekend at Bernie’s.

              It’s one thing to say that he trusted that they’d take care of it, and relied on them to do so. It’s another to say that he didn’t notice that nobody had called the police and that Sandusky hadn’t been arrested.

              • But he’s not a propped up corpse from Weekend at Bernie’s.

                Nor am I attributing the same level of culpability to him as to a propped-up corpse. I’m talking about his guilt being diminished, not wiped out entirely.

            • Doc Gargunza says:

              Puts it out of his mind? Are you real?

              Unless he is in the grip of dementia so severe he is unable to comprehend the rape of a pre-pubescent boy then any reaction other than ensuring the full force of the law is brought to bear against the perpetrator of this despicable act is morally reprehensible. And if he is in the grip of a dementia that severe he shouldn’t be on the premises as he represents a risk to himself and others.

            • Jonathan says:

              What does it mean to be Human? It can’t simply be a biological definition. Biology has no sharp edges. Merely gradations at the margins. I believe Humanity (with a capital “H”) is an act. One is Human when one can behave as a human. One is a Human when one is an ethical actor. That is to say, one is Human when one behaves in a Just manner towards other ethical actors. For example, it is no more wrong to kill someone trying to murder you than it is to crush a mosquito. Paterno was not behaving Justly towards the children he allowed to be raped. If one will not act as a Human, one should be treated as an animal and caged for the safety and welfare of people who can.

    • Pinko Punko says:

      Why is the AD the person that needs to be informed? Why not the cops? Why is this an in-house thing?

      • Pinko Punko says:

        Some twitterers were posting PA code on this, by law you are required to inform your supervisor, so underling was put in bad position of course by the AD etc. Since the AD has allegedly perjured himself, I admit that this would be scary to me. “I saw X and a told Y about it, then I report to the police”- knowing what Y told you it would be handled and then nothing happens? By this time you know if you report to the police you are also reporting on the coverup. Basically the AD has raised the ante hugely. These are terrible terrible people.

        • rm says:

          And that’s a terrible law. The first report of a crime shouldn’t go to one’s boss, it should go to law enforcement or emergency response, for frig’s sake. This is how rapes on college campuses become “discipline issues” and assault in schools becomes “bullying.” These are crimes, bring in the damn cops.

          Clearly, I haven’t thought this through (one must presume law enforcement is competent and not corrupt, which is of course not always the case), but also clearly I think the balance is all off and the law should not say “report it to your boss.”

          • Pinko Punko says:

            it seems like the basis of the law is to make the entire institution culpable.

          • The first report of a crime shouldn’t go to one’s boss, it should go to law enforcement or emergency response, for frig’s sake.

            Except that Paterno wasn’t reporting a crime per se, but someone else’s (who was not the victim) report of a crime – basically, hearsay. So now we’re into the territory of deciding if this report is credible, if there’s any evidence, etc. So, a decision has to be made – is this sufficiently credible to report to the police?

            Paterno handed that decision over to the AD and the rest of the administration, like he’s handed over every other decision in recent years. The grand jury seems to have decided that doing so was not part of the attempted coverup.

            • Anonymous says:

              I find it hard to believe he didn’t find it credible after Sandusky had been investigated in the past. If it was not credible, then it is odd he (and the institution) would keep the individual making incredible and explosive allegations on staff for over a decade. It sounds as if Paterno is protected by an incredibly problematic law that made his only legal obligation reporting it to his higher ups and not, potentially, to the police. He also seems to be central to the perjury case because in the grand jury testimony he and the GA reported a rape, while the other two men claimed under oath they were only told about horsing around.

              I hope the ass covering by the institution leads to a significant civil case since they played a vital role in enabling the exploitation of numerous children.

            • chris says:

              So now we’re into the territory of deciding if this report is credible, if there’s any evidence, etc. So, a decision has to be made – is this sufficiently credible to report to the police?

              No, it doesn’t. Deciding that you’re going to make that decision yourself is taking the credibility determination out of the hands of the police, who are probably better at it than football coaches. (At least, I hope so, or why am I paying taxes to pay police wages?)

              • Deciding that you’re going to make that decision yourself (whether or not to call the police) is taking the credibility determination out of the hands of the police

                Chris, I saw your next door neighbor building a dirty bomb.

                Are you going to call the police on him now? You wouldn’t want to take the decision about the charge’s credibility away from the police, would you?

                (And absurd example, I know, but it demonstrates that, yes, people do consider whether a charge is credible before reporting it to the police).

  7. Jonathan says:

    Why are so many major American institutions apparently run by sociopaths?

    Well, there’s several answers to that. I’ll give you the three best.

    3) All corporations are inherently sociopathic. Therefore sociopaths are best suited to carry out the collective will of the corporation.

    2) The Peter Principle. Essentially, people get promoted until they find themselves in a job they are too incompetent at to get a promotion. Narcissists and sociopaths will take credit for the work of others to make themselves look better. Thus, even though they reach a point where they are incompetent, they will retain the appearance of competence necessary to climb to the very highest ranks of a company.

    Of course, both those explanations only raise deeper questions. Why do we use systems of promotion to promote sociopaths and narcissists over others who are more inherently better suited to such roles? Why does a collection of individuals who are, by a large majority, mostly not sociopaths start to function as a sociopath collectively? That leads to the ultimate answer:

    1) Our society is built on the basis of scarcity. There is a finite amount of resources critical for maintaining a state of non-suffering. There are more people than can be serviced by the available resources. Thus life is inherently zero-sum. One cannot enjoy a state of non-suffering, or even reduced-suffering, without ensuring that another must exist in a state of suffering. Thus, any society developing in such a situation would have at least one system, and probably more than one system, for determining who suffers and who prospers. Any social system that exists for any extended period of time is necessarily capable of self-propagation. So, we are now left with a robust series of systems (patriarchy, racism, homophobia, classicism…) designed to engender unequal distribution of wealth and suffering (the keirarchy) that favor those most likely to perpetuate a system that cause needless suffering simply to elevate a few relative to the majority (sociopaths & narcissists).

  8. Paul Campos says:

    Paterno knew Sandusky had a “problem” with kids (the PSU police department did an investigation of him in 1998, and by a huge coincidence Paterno basically fired the guy a few months later). His behavior in 2002 — nine years ago! — was disgraceful. Basically the most powerful person in the AD (him) washed his hands of any responsibility, even though with a phone call he could have barred Sandusky from campus. Instead, PSU went on to allow Sandusky to run camps for 4th-9th grade kids on campus as late as 2007.

    • c u n d gulag says:

      I’ve long been a Penn St fan, and a Joe Pa fan.

      No more. I’ve lost ALL respect for both.
      ‘Say it ain’t so, Joe!’
      Sadly, it’s so.

      And wtf was the university thinking?
      Sure, let a child rapist, even an ‘alleged’ one, run camps for kids. No problemo!
      No one though he was developing his own rapist minor’s league?
      SICK!

      I’m against the death penalty, but sometimes, I wonder…

    • jeer9 says:

      I agree that it appears to be a case of Paterno “protecting” one of his long-time coaching buddies and doing the absolute minimum (reporting the incident to administrators) which he then fails to follow up on thereby guaranteeing that further abuse will occur. They’re all skunks, though the administrators are perhaps the only ones legally culpable. That the former starting quarterback who witnessed the horrific crime by his former coach reacted in such a political fashion reveals a lot about his moral character, which as others have stated upthread is understandable, if inexcusable, behavior.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      Paterno knew Sandusky had a “problem” with kids (the PSU police department did an investigation of him in 1998, and by a huge coincidence Paterno basically fired the guy a few months later).

      I really think this deserves more emphasis. What happened in 2002 was not an isolated incident unless you think that it’s complete fluke that Paterno’s heir apparent was asked to “resign” after an investigation.

  9. Spokane Moderate says:

    People suck.

  10. wiley says:

    Why are so many major American institutions apparently run by sociopaths?

    Because sociopaths rose to the tippity-tippy-top of business schools, created the model of the ideal worker and manager, and are considered experts on these matters. The ideal manager is a sociopath, and many Americans knock themselves out to become or to mimic something they should be very thankful that they are not, because for people of conscience doing things that sociopaths consider to be ideal causes pain and shame, and shame is indelible.

    This is also where our concept of justice and punishment goes wrong— the sociopath is physiologically incapable of feeling shame. He/she does not have the architectural structure in his/her brain to feel such a deep emotion. Why even bother? Lock them up. You can’t understand them, just learn to identify them, stop taking their bait, stop promoting them, stop taking their advice, and for crying out loud stop trying to adapt to their pathological world view.

  11. rm says:

    Why is it that crimes, especially rapes, that occur on campus are somehow different? If that grad student had come across an old man raping a child in an alley, he’d have been a lot more likely to call 911. Yes, I know the damn answer to my damn question, but I’m too disgusted to accept it. A crime at work is not in the jurisdiction of your boss just because it’s at work — and schools have been covering up rapes forever. Fucking monsters.

  12. Jim Lynch says:

    I must have ran my “reply” liberties out up-thread. Leastwise, I was denied a last word in the flame.

    I’ll simply reiterate: Wow.

    Over and out.

    • More posing.

      Pose as a tough guy who would have totally be Mr. Awesome.

      Pose as someone who’s previous pose is self-evidently right.

      One trick pony.

      • Ronnie Pudding says:

        I’m losing the thread of this argument.

        “Mr. Awesome” is he who, if in the grad student’s shoes, might have sought fit to follow up with the authorities at some point?

        • Not “might have.” There is no “might” in Mr. Awesome’s certainty of what he would have done, nor in his inability to empathize with why someone did not adhere to Mr. Awesome (imaginary, hypothetical) standards of behavior.

          If there had been a statement made about what someone might have done differently, we wouldn’t be the realm of Mr. Awesome.

          • muddy says:

            I don’t want to look back up at people’s exact words, but to me the gist was that he ran off leaving a child in jeopardy, and you say that well it’s like gun nuts saying what a rooting tooting hero they’d be.

            I agree with you about the gun thing, it’s silly (and I am very handy with the firearms). However the 2 circumstances you state are not at all the same. In the first one you might be shot dead any second yourself, a different mindset than walking into a room with one adult and one child. What, is he going to suddenly turn his penis on you? I can see running in fear if the coach had a gun to a kid’s head for the fun of terrorizing him, and you think he might turn it to you.

            But this is coming in a room to find a man with his pants down with a child. What is the atavistic threat here? Shock, disgust, certainly. Flight or fight syndrome seems a bit much.

            I could see retreating in consternation if it were an adult student, you might not know if it were mutually agreeable. You might find out later the coach was raping the student and you would feel bad you didn’t say anything. But with a 10 year old child? There is no confusion.

            The very *least* you could do would be to say STOP IT, and altho the child was raped at least it didn’t need to go on as long. Every second of raping that went on after that guy went in and saw, he was essentially a big part of. Every second, every tearing thrust. In fact the pervert probably got even more enjoyment out of the raping when the child had a moment of hope which was then dashed.

            My neighbor was saying to me the other day about these kids she knew and the foster parents were abusing them, the authorities actually asked this woman to be a witness and she wouldn’t tell them anything “because I have to live here”. She was telling me this in the line of, that woman is terrible and I am so upright. We don’t live in a vengeance paradise or anything, it would just be uncomfortable at the corner store. I was gobsmacked. Took a deep breath and said that I wished someone had helped me when I was abused as a child.

            I guess my neighbor is uncomfortable now anyway, she hasn’t spoken to me since, and I feel I took a gentle tone in my statement, much gentler than this. I am trying still by other means to find out who this abusive foster parent is.

            I feel confident I would always jump in if I saw abuse of any kind. These days I am trying to be braver about jumping in on this topic in general.

            I don’t know if I changed the neighbor’s mind about her actions, but at least she isn’t prancing about acting all holy about it now. ;-)

            • But this is coming in a room to find a man with his pants down with a child. What is the atavistic threat here?

              The rapist was someone who had power over the graduate assistant, not some stranger. Someone very tied into a power structure that had a great deal of power over the witness, and who, we now know, had already been protected by that power structure before. And this football player guy, who has been indoctrinated for years to revere and obey coaches, doesn’t immediately provoke a confrontation with him (although he did “turn him in” later).

              I find it all too easy to understand how that guy in that position could freeze up.

              • Doc Gargunza says:

                Never mind the child having his innocence stolen and his life ruined, what about my career? Sociopathy in action.

              • muddy says:

                I would say that he must have been frozen to stand there and compute all that. I wonder did he close his eyes while he thought it over, or did he watch?

                Obviously it is the overall power of the program that is the main issue for this sort of thing going on. Whether it be priests or coaches or doctors. Intellectually I guess the GA had the least power, why pick on him? But as someone who has been on the child’s end of the equation it was those who were supposed to be good and normal folks who did nothing that were the worst.

                The rapist is a rapist. You expect him to be a bad guy. You can try to guard yourself against rapists. But how can you guard yourself against collaborators?

                You won’t be able to tell who they are until afterward, or in some cases during.

            • BonnyAnne says:

              I hate to jump in to what is obviously a very sensitive issue…

              My husband and I were discussing the case last night, and we agreed right away on one thing: the grad student, by any standards, should have been on the phone to the police within about 60 seconds of witnessing what he saw. It’s the actions in that first 60 seconds where husband and I differed.

              My husband’s response, he hoped, would be to find whatever solid athletic equipment was lying around and put a very swift end to the situation (but not the coach, not quite). My response would be to turn and run, pulling my phone out of my pocket and calling as soon as I felt I was not in immediate danger. He thought that was a very odd response an called me on it. My honest reply: if I stumbled on a situation where someone was being raped, and I tried to break it up, my very real fear would be that I would be raped next. Maybe he had a knife or gun. maybe he was on drugs and super-aggressive.

              I’m not proud of that response, and I can only hope I might do better in real life. But my instinct 100% lay in first running in the other direction, THEN dialing 911.

              • John says:

                He really thought it was an odd response that a woman wouldn’t think to physically disable a rapist, but would rather call the police? That strikes me as a much odder response than yours.

                • It appears that the visceral impact of a crime like this is so intense that people have trouble imagining how anyone could have an instinctive response other than their own.

                • BonnyAnne says:

                  I love him dearly, but he’s a large, burly, blue-collar sort of guy, and is perpetually surprised that I don’t like walking around dark parking lots under the freeway at night, or taking a bus by myself at 3 am, etc.

                  He’s never once been in a situation where he’s had to think: “how could this person hurt me?” But at least he acknowledges his privilege, rather than criticize me for “timidity” or “dramatics” or whatever slurs some people throw at women who have learned to be cautious.

          • blue duck says:

            All that grad assistant jackass would have had to have done is find a goddamn phone and hit 911.

            Even a jock should have enough brain cells to figure THAT out. Doesn’t take a ‘tough guy’ or a rocket scientist to manage THAT.

            Jeezus Haploid Christ on a pogo stick, WTF is WRONG with people? I give the fuck up on the human race. Really. Let the cockroaches inherit the earth, they couldn’t fuck things up more than H. sapiens, I swear.

    • chris says:

      I must have ran my “reply” liberties out up-thread.

      Just so you know, there’s a limit on reply depth on this blog. The best known workaround is to reply to the “parent” of the post you’re really replying to, which will put your reply at least in approximately the right place.

      It wasn’t some kind of censorship (I don’t know if you’re implying that, or just confused about what happened).

  13. Witt says:

    It’s a shame this thread got derailed, because there are some disturbing but important questions here, including:

    1. To what extent does fear of getting sued or fired affect how people report these sort of crimes?

    My hypothesis is that large institutions are so accustomed to (and in some cases so worn out by) dealing with lawsuits and threats of suits that people in positions of authority regularly make decisions that parallel the Ford Pinto mentality. In essence, they do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it isn’t worth the fight.

    If we care about protecting 10-year-olds, and anybody else victimized in a crime like this, I think we have to think about what we can do to ensure the structure of our society doesn’t support this kind of thinking.

    2. To what extent does fear of *embarrassment* affect reporting? And here I mean the full gamut from “What if the offender lies and says I didn’t see what I saw, and everybody believes him?” to “What if reporting this means that I am forever linked in people’s memories with a child rape case?”

    More to the point, what can we do to minimize the likelihood that people act on these kinds of fears?

    • Anderson says:

      I think we have to think about what we can do to ensure the structure of our society doesn’t support this kind of thinking.

      Put Tim Curley in prison for the rest of his life.

      The costs of covering up rape have to appear much worse than the costs of reporting it.

      “What if the offender lies and says I didn’t see what I saw, and everybody believes him?”

      That’s a tougher question, I concede.

  14. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    Many Grad students are exfootball players and typically are physcially fit. He probably knew and respected the coach and was completely shocked at seeing somone he knew and respected raping a child. Had he not known the coach he probably would have intervened but at that moment was agape and aghast at seeing his coach sodomize another male and a child at that.

    I have no idea what I would have done as a GA if I saw my coach having gay sex with a boy he was raping. Typically i am aggressive however anybody can be shocked and stunned and their nature stymied by something abominable such as this.

    Truly this is unfathomable and I am almost certain that he has recurring nightmares and regret for not acting more swiftly and decisively. He probably had no idea. I hope he sees it through. Truly I do

    • muddy says:

      I don’t see what “gay sex” has to do with anything. “Having gay sex with a child he was raping”. It’s not having sex if it is rape, gay or otherwise.

      What if the coach was having heterosexual sex with a girl he was raping? Is that supposed to be better, or worse?

      For a long time I didn’t know what to say when the topic comes up with friends, how old were you when you first had sex? This was decades ago when these things were not discussed. In the end I settled with saying the age when I first *chose* to be in a sexual situation, not the age when I was forced to be in one.

      Rape is not “having sex”, I see people/news articles with this usage all the time and it’s sad.

      • rm says:

        muddy, W.J.W.’s prose has textual markers that show that either English is not his first language, or that writing is not easy for him. He’s doing the best he can and getting basic meaning right, if not tone.

  15. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    Sandusky was obvioulsy using the charity as a front to take advantage of children from poor families and limited resources. The school did act as an enabler by not firing him on the spot. Everybody tip toeing around the issue so that the school is not tarnished all the while the coach is acting out his twisted fantasies on kids and using the football program to snare them.

    You simply cannot tolerate this type of pathological behavior at a school and he should have been quickly and quitely turned in to the police prosecuted and kept away from children forever.

    This is precisely why my children cannot spend the night at somone elses house ever. You simply do not know who people are. That this guy got away with this for all these years is tragic

  16. David Nieporent says:

    This is precisely why my children cannot spend the night at somone elses house ever. You simply do not know who people are.

    WTF? Do you also lock your kid in the basement 24/7 so he doesn’t get skin cancer, grow all food yourself because you never know when someone might try to poison food at the supermarket, and forbid music because there might be subliminal satanic messages in there?

  17. [...] I’m too cynical these days, but looking at this list of charges against Jerry Sandusky, there is simply no way all of that happened without multiple people knowing about it. It just [...]

  18. Holden Pattern says:

    I am enjoying the “diminished responsibility” defense of Paterno quite a bit. It’s pretty close to the defense of Ronald Reagan from Iran-Contra, and is bringing up fun memories from the 1980′s.

  19. Doc Gargunza says:

    Reading the list of charges it appears he is a predatory paedophile who needs to be indefinitely detained for the protection of children and general good of society.

  20. Jim Lynch says:

    “The rapist was someone who had power over the graduate assistant, not some stranger. Someone very tied into a power structure that had a great deal of power over the witness, and who, we now know, had already been protected by that power structure before”.

    You are one sick fuck.

  21. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    No English is my first language and I am educated. Yes it does matter that he was having gay sex in the football player’s shower with a ten year old boy. Were you that 10 year old boy Muddy? Did someone digitally probe your anus and then ravish it at 10? Were you sexually abused and do you find yourself attracted to dominant old men? These are some of the psychiatric complications that result as a result from the sodomization of children. I have interviewed and reviewed the history of such individuals and they are quite disturbed on the whole and when they are old enough to fully grasp what has happened to them many are rightfully bitter and angry.
    Many Gay people see homosexual intercourse as a normal sexual pathway. You have to be aware that until many Gays go into psychiatry and took it over politically homosexuality was considered completely pathological and a form of insanity. I would not describe Sandusky as a mentally sound or sane man. Rather he would fit the typical sexual predator profile that is common among pedophiles. Everyone has seen it before, catholic priest the overwhelming lot homosexuals abusing children, the congressional leaders and the gay page and intern scandals again older men and younger boys, the group NAMBLA by definition. Many of these people are psychotic and it has been shown that when these individuals et off of their medication they go back to their homosexual ideation. Surely you have are familiar with the research that shows that abused children grow up to be child abusers themselves and in this case someone should query Mr. Sandusky if he was sexually abused as a child in a compassionate and clinical sort of way. This is the sort of information the public needs to be made aware of, probably could put it on utube for dissemination. Should you be having your own sexual orientation issues and it appears as though you are from your confession
    “In the end I settled with saying the age when I first *chose* to be in a sexual situation, not the age when I was forced to be in one”
    You should seek professional psychotherapy from a qualified and reputable psychiatrist as there are many cases of successful reorientation. Good luck

    David Nieporent

    There is simply not much I can offer you in the way of constructive advice as you are obviously cognitively challenged. From your comment, which is beyond illogical in the context of the discussion and to the point that I was making, you appear to have some processing issues. ADD, ADHD AUTISM any number of brain injuries could manifest your symptoms i.e. flght of ideas lack of focus. This could be the result of some genetic mutation, vaccine induced regression or other environmental factors like drug use. Do you smoke methamphetamine, crack or crank? Should drug use be the case and I suspect from your comments that this maybe the origin of your confusion there are a number of rehabilitation centers that I could suggest. I have seen this many times before and you may not be too far gone just yet but I would not procrastinate as you are in need of help clearly and this can only deteriorate further.

    • Mrs Tilton says:

      No … I am educated.

      In your place I’d think of asking for my money back.

    • muddy says:

      When rm spoke up for your usage, I apologized for taking you the wrong way, but now I take it back.

      I was right the first time and you are an idiot. Thank you for putting your complete view out for everyone to see so you can’t be misunderstood.

      Being gay is not the same as being a pedophile. Most pedophiles are heterosexual men by a large margin. Try looking it up in your ongoing education.

      I’m not sure what I should re-orient about myself on your recommendation, being that I am a heterosexual woman (yes! from birth! imagine it!).

      Don’t you worry, as an obvious mental health professional, that you might get into trouble for diagnosing people over the internet? You could use the license you educated yourself so thoroughly for.

      Really, I worry about you!

  22. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    Mrs Tilton,

    I give away more money than you make

  23. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    Jerry had an organization called the “second mile”. Guess we will have to change the name to the “wierd mile”.
    I bet this will be the perfect halloween costume next year, I can see it now old lady Tilton and Niefart, Muddy Waters, and rm wearing a Sandusky Mask and walking around with their pants down around their knees as the new halloween coalition, actually one of you should wear a Gaddafi mask- maybe Muddy Waters- and then walk up together “trick or treat!”. Yeah we will post it right here for all to see!!!

  24. Malaclypse says:

    Do trolls have google alerts for the word “sodomy” and “sodomize”? As a suggestion, don’t feed them when it comes to their favorite topic.

  25. WILLIE JOE WILLIE says:

    Malaclypse there are just so many psychotic people walking around who engage in it and so many others like yourself that try to rationalize it on their behalf and apologize to the psychos for most of us not wanting to have our children anally raped we feel compelled to speak out against it.

    People like you are literally masturbating over the idea that this guy Cain had a “sexual harrasment” pay out of 5 figures when sexual harrasment was all the rage and the latest fad to get back at your boss, but you and other like minded persons see absolutely nothing amiss with a ten year old being forceibly anally raped by a man posing as a youth advocate, a truly sick individual and when somone brings it up your shocked and appalled that we want to discuss it and start calling everybody trolls. It really is hard to tell who the sicker individual is you or Sandusky as you both need serious help.

    Sandusky is the kind of a guy that evolves into a John Wayne Gacy. He was the clown killer and he was active in his community as well just like Sandusky trying to look “normal” a psychotic in sheeps clothing.
    Gacy became active in his local community activity and projects, including entertaining at picnics and parties as a clown and volunteering to clean the township Democratic Party office where he offered the labor services of his PDM employees free of charge.[54] Gacy was rewarded for his services by being appointed to serve upon the Norwood Park Township street lighting committee.[55] He subsequently earned the title of precinct captain.[8] In 1975, Gacy was appointed director of Chicago’s annual Polish Constitution Day Parade—an annual event he was to supervise from 1975 until 1978. Through his work with the parade, Gacy met and was photographed with then First Lady Rosalynn Carter on May 6, 1978.[56] Rosalynn Carter signed one photo: “To John Gacy. Best Wishes. Rosalynn Carter”. The event later became an embarrassment to the United States Secret Service, as in the pictures Gacy is wearing an “S” pin, indicating a person who has received a special clearance by the Secret Service.

    By 1975, Gacy had ceased to have sexual relations with his wife after openly admitting to her he was bisexual.[50] He began spending most evenings away from home only to return in the early hours of the morning with the excuse he had been working late.[51] His wife observed Gacy bringing teenage boys into his garage and also found gay pornography inside the house.

    So should we wait until Sandusky evolves into this type of a degenerate and we find the bodies of ten year old boys stuffed in locker rooms and buried under football fields Malaclypse ? That’s what it sounds like your advocating, well let me give you a hint tough guy WE’RE NOT WAITING SO GET WITH THAT AND WE DO NOT LIKE HIM OR ANYTHING HE STANDS FOR – PUT THAT PSYCHOPATH AWAY NOW ALONG WITH ALL OF HIS SUPPORTERS

    As far as name calling goes we got some pretty good names for you people too ok

  26. Hogan says:

    The decent, right-minded people in this country are sick and tired of being told that they are fed up with being sick and tired. I for one am not fed up with being sick and tired and I’m fed up with being told that I am.

  27. Barry says:

    Mrs Tilton says:

    “Paul & other LGMers,

    in a matter that is OT to the post but not to this comments thread, have you noticed that Crooked Timber have recently become more aggressive about dropping the banhammer on belligerent commenters who fill up every thread with bellowings about how they are right and everybody else is stupid? That’s a model other bloggers might consider adopting.”

    And I suggest doing it to anybody who’s accounting for a quarter of the comments, or any pair whose back-and-forth is accounting for a quarter of the comments.

    Unless what they’re saying is that good, which is never.

  28. Generally I do not read article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very compelled me to check out and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice post.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site