I think Harmon knew and was told to report this, and he choose not to.
OT: FYI, JZ says Newsweek article is still a go. (edit: Story now spiked)
- Thread starter MtNittany
- Start date
Joe knew in 2001 that Sandusky was investigated in 1998 as regards child abuse.
I always wonder if other coaches (e.g., Fran Ganter) didn't know about that investigation too. For instance, that October 1998 Lasch Building meeting amongst Gricar, Schreffler, Sloane, Ganter and Ralston. Pretty coincidental 5-some.
This entire exercise was about prevention. '98 could have gone badly for PSU if V6's mom had chosen to file a civil suit. As we know from the OJ case, the burden of proof is different in a civil suit than in a criminal case.
On 2/25/01, Schultz made the following note:
"1) Tell JS to avoid bringing children alone to Lasch Bldg."
If Mike's report had involved a child victim of CSA, do you really think Schultz would have been wishy washy about Jerry's future use of the facilities? Avoid, really? Wouldn't he have been more adamant about booting Jerry out of there?
More to the point, why did he specify "alone"? Schultz wasn't even saying that Jerry should never bring kids to work out at PSU. What he was really concerned about was the he said/he said aspect of Jerry doing so "alone".
The BSA has a similar policy with its adult leaders. For example, when I accompanied my son's troop on a camp out and a kid had to use the facilities in the middle of the night, I couldn't take him unless there was either another adult or another scout with us. I thought that was overkill initially. I had known these other dads since cub scouts. Eventually, I realized that the policy wasn't so much to protect the boys, but to protect the BSA and me.
This is where I believe Schultz's head was at when he wrote that.
Again, there's not a single reference to the boy Sandusky was with in any of the notes or emails from '01. No one was concerned that he might go to the authorities. They were concerned about what might happen in the future if Jerry didn't follow their directive.
I dont think he is. At one of the trials, Gary seems confused about what happened. You would know the specifics better than me. Gary says they reported it, and somebody asks to whom or whatever? Then he mutters something along the lines of ' I thought we reported that , but if there isnt a report, I guess we didnt' . IMO, he thought it was to be reported and he is pretty sure he didnt make the report, so Harmon would be the likely guy. I think, just based on the kind of note taker he is reported to have been, and now he cant remember things, I think he may have some kind of early on set dementia or something, and that is why he was confused at trial.
I find it strange that Schultz has copious notes about some things and nothing about others.
mayb
maybe he does, but cant find them, or someone else did and got rid of them, I dont know.
Were any restrictions placed on Jerry's future access to children as a result of that investigation? Was he charged with a crime of any sort?
Well, since you are now aware of your mistake, you need to go back and fix the associated mistaken narrative:
This entire statement makes no sense if you remove the "failure to report" part. So would you like to recant your statement? I'll preempt you, before you say that you could just change "failure to report" to "endangering the welfare of children", I'll ask you to justify how they endangered the welfare of children, and how the law specifically applied to them. Spoiler alert, they didn't and it doesn't.
I don't find it that strange. Sometimes I'm in meetings where I take a ton of notes and sometimes I'm in meetings where I take very few. It depends on the meeting, why I feel like I need the notes and how much caffeine I've had. ;-)
@michnittlion, this case aside, can you provide a single example from Joe's well documented life where he faced a dilemma (or potential dilemma) and consciously chose to act out of self interest despite having access to the necessary knowledge & tools to make the correct/moral/ethical choice?
Those that knew about 98 knew that Sandusky....a man lauded as a near saint by Presidents had been accused by some "hysterical mother".....investigated by all the proper agencies and given a clean bill of health. The hind sight bias is hilarious by some. If anything it would have made MMs vague and dated observation, similar and not very alarming. In addition, JR surely knew the child and his sidekick Bruce gave Jerry the keys to move down the street. Not behavior suspicious folks engage in.
Correct, as both you and Michnittlion point out the Jenkins interview was in January after the firing and about a month after Freeh had been retained. The presentment which contained a summary of Joe's GJ testimony was available to the BOT.
My post was in response to the assertion that the BOT commissioned the Freeh report to prove that Joe deserved to be fired otherwise they would look bad. Joe had problems once the presentment was released as subsequently confirmed in the Jenkins interview. If the BOT only commissioned Freeh to prove Joe deserved to be fired, they could have saved the money after the Jenkins interview.
Freeh promised to make every effort to provide the "desired results." Frazier was delighted to point to the discovery of a "Paterno hook." Masser knew the "report" would be "hard on Joe" weeks before it became public. After Joe died the misanthropes were lepers. Freeh was charged with implicating Joe.
In regards to this entire mess.....it is likely the biggest crime that took place on the PSU Campus was when the check was printed to Freeh for 8.5 million.....until the check was cut for victim 9 (because his lawyers had won access to the Freeh work product) for 20 million.
and you are a voyeurWhat a shame.
You've missed out on six years of intellectual cripples humping one another with the same Dildos of Stupidity.
I don't think MM is a coward. I think he became a liar. He didn't see abuse that night....but he did after the OAG made him see the light.
I didnt say he was. Michnitt was talking about how JVP was okay from a legal point of view, and I asked what other point of view there was!!!
I dont think MM is a physical coward. I do think he was intimidated by his subordinate status relative to JVP and JS, if that makes sense.
Raykovitz is clueless
More than any other, Raykovitz's testimony amounted to a new disclosure in the case. Unlike many other witnesses, he had never before been required to publicly testify about his knowledge of Sandusky’s misconduct. And longtime critics of the prosecution – as well as defenders of Spanier – have often asserted that the Second Mile, the defunct charity where Sandusky groomed many of his victims, has long escaped scrutiny it deserved in the scandal.
It came on a day that opened with a prosecutor suggesting to jurors that inaction or indifference by Spanier and two others – Curley and former vice president Gary Schultz, both now government witnesses -- allowed a sex predator to thrive.
“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for men to do nothing,” said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Schulte. “Evil thrives when men do nothing.”
Spanier’s lawyer, in turn, countered that his client never conspired with anyone but rather was being wrongfully prosecuted for “a judgment call” based on sparse information he got from others.
Much of the day was spent using witnesses to educate jurors on what by now are the familiar facts of the case:
Former university police chief Tom Harmon and detective Ronald Schreffler gave accounts of their 1998 investigation into an allegation that Sandusky had showered with a different young boy. Harmon acknowledged on cross-examination that he never discussed the incident with Spanier, and that no one from the university interfered with the investigation, which ultimately ended without charges.
McQueary described for jurors what he saw in the locker-room shower in 2001 and how awkward it was to report it to head coach Joe Paterno.
“It’s Coach. He’s like a grandpa. He’s revered. You just don’t talk about that with Coach Paterno,” McQueary testified.
His father, John J. McQueary, then told jurors that Schultz had promised him Penn State officials would look into the report by his son. The elder McQueary also said Schultz told him “we’ve heard rumblings” about similar encounters involving Sandusky but that “each time, we came up empty-handed.”
Having his kid (Jay) on staff would be one example. Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe knew this. Jay being a PSU assistant was not in PSU's best interest.
But he kept him on for some reason. I certainly have my suspicions as to why.
He had the best reason many of us can think of.....to chap your ass.
OK, nice one.
But what's your answer to the question: "Was Joe looking out for his interests or Penn State's interests when he employed Jay for all those years?"
I played college football and was a high school head coach for 15 years....I'm not convinced that Jay was the dunce everyone wants him to have been.
In any event. Joe was not the first, nor is it even unusual for father-son coaching tandems in football.
Something I've often wondered, what if Joe had done more in 2001 and no charges were brought on Sandusky again, or he was acquitted at some point? What would be the optics of Joe "following up" only to have Sandusky run loose again?
So, a police officer with knowledge of 1998 is asked about that situation by his boss three years later. And the officer, who is trained to be suspicious, asks no questions, seeks no other information, and lets the Schultz' inquiry die that moment.
Me thinks Harmon is a bit of a liar himself and failed in his duties as an officer of the law. .
Maybe Jay wasn't a dunce (although Jay hasn't coached football anywhere beyond PSU over the last 6 years), but your response didn't answer my question.
Was Joe looking out more for his interests or Penn State's interests in employing Jay?
Wrong. Spanier, at least, was falsely convicted of EWOC. I forget C&S. Spanier was convicted of EWOC: (1) after the statute of limitations expired and (2) for a child that was not in his care. That right there is is corruption by the state. Please add another $33,333,333.33 with your penny on Spaniers behalf
I think Joe felt that he was the most qualified person to judge what was in the best interest of Penn State Football. I would agree that he was.
No different that Frank Beamer and Son...Bobby Bowden and Son.....Dennis Ericksen and Son.....Kirk Ferentz and Son.....Steve Spurrier and Son.....Lou Holtz and Son.....Bum Phillips and Son.....Don Shula and Son.......Bill Belichick and Son
It was Schultz's job to report. Maybe Harmon may have been suspicious, but let's not forget my first sentence --- it was Schultz's job.
All three had charges dropped due only to Baldwin screwing up & being unclear on who she represented. If attorney client privilege didn't exist there they might well have been guilty of more.
Yet Jay remains unemployed as a football coach. Despite expressing interest in wanting to coach.
I'll take Jay's continued unemployment to be evidence that most football-smart people agree with me: Jay was a below-average coach, and Joe wasn't serving the best interests of PSU in employing him.
To the original question --- Joe providing Jay with a job is evidence of a situation where Joe chose to act out of self interest despite having access to the necessary knowledge & tools to make the correct/moral/ethical choice.
I don't think Jay's inability to find a coaching job has anything to do with his football coaching skills. I believe it is more about the fact that there are many qualified candidates to fill assistant positions and their last name is not Paterno. Why would any head coach want to put up with the kind of nonsense that was visited upon Schiano? The Paterno Name and Football outside of those who have cared enough to find the truth, is toxic.
Given Harmon's convenient lapse of police acumen, what difference would it have made had Schultz "reported" to Harmon?
Isn't it kind of strange that everyone outside of CSS&P who had knowledge of 2001 or 1998 conveniently escape any and all judgment for their co,plete and utter failures? the list is much longer than CSS&P. It includes, Scheffler, HArmon, Gricar, Chambers, Raykixitz, Dranov, J McQuery, MM's brother, brother-in-law, CYS, ... we could do this one all night
You can take it anyway you would like. If Jay's name were not Paterno, he could find a coaching job, no problem.
Explain to me how EWOC applied to any of them? Especially Spanier since I know that is what he was currently convicted on.
It might be that those with knowledge of how or why the 98 investigation was ended, were protected.
Similar threads
