With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

[PSU2UNC]

You’ve never seen me say that, though. I just find it disingenuous when people use showering in the same group shower with their coaches/gym teachers as comparable to what we know Sandusky was doing (I’m not saying that is what bbrown was doing here as I don’t think that’s his MO).

They were showering in a group shower. Some people (not you) find that fact alone enough to convict Sandusky. That is (IMHO) ludicrous. And that being ludicrous doesn't mean that it was appropriate behavior (it was not).

Similarly, horseplay in the shower is also (highly) inappropriate. That also doesn't necessarily make it child abuse.

 

[Connorpozlee]

They were showering in a group shower. Some people (not you) find that fact alone enough to convict Sandusky. That is (IMHO) ludicrous. And that being ludicrous doesn't mean that it was appropriate behavior (it was not).

Similarly, horseplay in the shower is also (highly) inappropriate. That also doesn't necessarily make it child abuse.

Yeah, I agree with this unc. Let’s be honest and call it what it is, not make believe it was something less than what is was.
Am I right that would you work in a therapeutic setting, or so I have you confused with somebody else? If so, the showering activity alone would send up some major red flags for you, wouldn’t it?

 

[bdgan]

You’ve never seen me say that, though. I just find it disingenuous when people use showering in the same group shower with their coaches/gym teachers as comparable to what we know Sandusky was doing

I think you miss the point. The point is that not too long ago it was common for young people to shower with adults. It's quite possible that administrators weren't as alarmed hearing about this than you were.

FWIW I don't thing Sandusky was completely innocent. He should have been scared to death about what happened in 1998. If somebody reported me to police I would have been rattled and I would have been extra cautious going forward. The fact that Sandusky repeated this behavior tells me that he had boundary issues. I don't know what to make of many of the claims against him. Lawyers hiring repressed memory specialists and $millions can encourage poor people to exaggerate their claims.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I think you miss the point. The point is that not too long ago it was common for young people to shower with adults. It's quite possible that administrators weren't as alarmed hearing about this than you were.

FWIW I don't thing Sandusky was completely innocent. He should have been scared to death about what happened in 1998. If somebody reported me to police I would have been rattled and I would have been extra cautious going forward. The fact that Sandusky repeated this behavior tells me that he had boundary issues. I don't know what to make of many of the claims against him. Lawyers hiring repressed memory specialists and $millions can encourage poor people to exaggerate their claims.

What point do you think I miss? If it’s that people of varying ages share group showers, then I haven’t missed that.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Yeah, I agree with this unc. Let’s be honest and call it what it is, not make believe it was something less than what is was.
Am I right that would you work in a therapeutic setting, or so I have you confused with somebody else? If so, the showering activity alone would send up some major red flags for you, wouldn’t it?

You are confusing me with someone else, but appreciate your well reasoned response with the addendum "let's not make it MORE than what it was" either.

 

[Connorpozlee]

You are confusing me with someone else, but appreciate your well reasoned response with the addendum "let's not make it MORE than what it was" either.

Ahhhh..... my bad.
Right, let’s call it what it was and take mindful consideration of what it was.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Ahhhh..... my bad.
Right, let’s call it what it was and take mindful consideration of what it was.

Completely agree. A lot of folks don't do that however. If you start from a place "OMG, they *showered* together?!?!?!?!" (again not saying you do this) it's tough to critically examine what actually happened, what the context is for that and what it means from a legal perspective.

 

[bdgan]

Yeah, I agree with this unc. Let’s be honest and call it what it is, not make believe it was something less than what is was.
Am I right that would you work in a therapeutic setting, or so I have you confused with somebody else? If so, the showering activity alone would send up some major red flags for you, wouldn’t it?

Everything seems black and white to you. You seem to think that JS was clearly a pedophile and the signs were obvious. Do you also think that TSM, Curley, Shultz, Spanier, Joe, McQueary Sr, Dranov, players, and coaches all turned a blind eye to the obvious?


The bigger question to me is why would TSM allow Sandusky or anybody else to interact with troubled kids one on one? Also, why did Central Mountain High School allow Sandusky to take kids from their school? It has nothing to do with suspecting JS to be a pedophile. It has to do with protecting your organization from liability.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Everything seems black and white to you. You seem to think that JS was clearly a pedophile and the signs were obvious. Do you also think that TSM, Curley, Shultz, Spanier, Joe, McQueary Sr, Dranov, players, and coaches all turned a blind eye to the obvious?


The bigger question to me is why would TSM allow Sandusky or anybody else to interact with troubled kids one on one? Also, why did Central Mountain High School allow Sandusky to take kids from their school? It has nothing to do with suspecting JS to be a pedophile. It has to do with protecting your organization from liability.

I think you might be mistaking me for somebody else but let me clarify for you.
What I do think is black and white is this: Grown men do not shower alone with boys and have physical contact with them when doing so. Never, and certainly not after agreeing with police to not do after bei. Investigated once previously. They just don’t. Does that prove that he is a pedophile? Nope. Should it give any reasonable person reason to think that he probably is a pedophile? Yep, but it’s not proof.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Completely agree. A lot of folks don't do that however. If you start from a place "OMG, they *showered* together?!?!?!?!" (again not saying you do this) it's tough to critically examine what actually happened, what the context is for that and what it means from a legal perspective.

Right, the idea that boys and men share a group shower together is not such an alarming thing. The fact that it’s alone and involves physical contact is extremely alarming.

 

[indynittany]

Can the cancel culture cancel the Sandusky scandal? After almost ten years what hasn’t been said.... and where is Ray Gricar anyway?

I'll tell you one thing that hasn't been said! The Pennsylvania State University has still not apologized to the Paterno family.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I'll tell you one thing that hasn't been said! The Pennsylvania State University has still not apologized to the Paterno family.

They’ve certainly kept to plan of just waiting it out until the vast, vast majority don't care anymore.

 

[BobPSU92]

francofan, I admire your passion for the truth and deep understanding of the sandusky matter. However, I don’t understand why you insist on arguing over and over again with the same people who aren’t interested in the facts. Please just ignore them.

 

[CentexLion]

I'll tell you one thing that hasn't been said! The Pennsylvania State University has still not apologized to the Paterno family.

Not certain that hasn't happened behind closed doors or not. Only they know, but both parties are "moving forward", and Jay got a payday out of it. Doesn't sound like either side is going to present any more facts

From the link below:

The university issued a statement, read at a meeting by the chairman of the board, that it had settled “outstanding issues" with the family, had agreed to pay “certain of the Paterno family's expenses” and wished to move forward. The amount was not disclosed.

“It is time to come together and devote our energies solely to education, research and the advancement of one of America's great institutions of higher learning,” Paterno's widow, Sue Paterno, said in a separate statement.

The deal ends a lawsuit against the university by the Paternos' son Jay, who is currently a member of the Penn State board. Jay Paterno had claimed the university-commissioned report into the scandal had unfairly tarnished him and made him unable to find work as a football coach.

https://www.wtae.com/article/penn-state-settles-outstanding-issues-with-joe-paterno-family/31049258

 

[BobPSU92]

Not certain that hasn't happened behind closed doors or not. Only they know, but both parties are "moving forward", and Jay got a payday out of it. Doesn't sound like either side is going to present any more facts

From the link below:

The university issued a statement, read at a meeting by the chairman of the board, that it had settled “outstanding issues" with the family, had agreed to pay “certain of the Paterno family's expenses” and wished to move forward. The amount was not disclosed.

“It is time to come together and devote our energies solely to education, research and the advancement of one of America's great institutions of higher learning,” Paterno's widow, Sue Paterno, said in a separate statement.

The deal ends a lawsuit against the university by the Paternos' son Jay, who is currently a member of the Penn State board. Jay Paterno had claimed the university-commissioned report into the scandal had unfairly tarnished him and made him unable to find work as a football coach.

https://www.wtae.com/article/penn-state-settles-outstanding-issues-with-joe-paterno-family/31049258

So where’s the statue?

In all seriousness, it could be that Sue decided not to pursue the statue since Joe didn’t like it (and perhaps also because it’s a poor likeness). Maybe for Sue, the library, spiritual center, and academic scholarship are enough. I could see that, as they represent Joe and Sue’s values.

 

[CentexLion]

So where’s the statue?

In all seriousness, it could be that Sue decided not to pursue the statue since Joe didn’t like it (and perhaps also because it’s a poor likeness). Maybe for Sue, the library, spiritual center, and academic scholarship are enough. I could see that, as they represent Joe and Sue’s values.

From the Article:

The university also removed a statue of Paterno outside its football stadium.

Penn State spokesman Lawrence Lokman said there are no plans to reinstall it, something Joe Paterno's supporters have sought.

“If we're ever to revisit that, we've agreed that that would require the mutual approval of the Paterno family,” Lokman said.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Right, the idea that boys and men share a group shower together is not such an alarming thing. The fact that it’s alone and involves physical contact is extremely alarming.

Agreed, but again alarming =/= illegal.

 

[scottpsurules]

So where’s the statue?

In all seriousness, it could be that Sue decided not to pursue the statue since Joe didn’t like it (and perhaps also because it’s a poor likeness). Maybe for Sue, the library, spiritual center, and academic scholarship are enough. I could see that, as they represent Joe and Sue’s values.

or it's in her basement...

 

[Connorpozlee]

Agreed, but again alarming =/= illegal.

I’m not sure that it’s necessarily not illegal though. If you and I were in a group shower alone together and I grab you and start soaping you up and hugging you, would that meet the criteria of a sexual assault?

 

[bdgan]

I think you might be mistaking me for somebody else but let me clarify for you.
What I do think is black and white is this: Grown men do not shower alone with boys and have physical contact with them when doing so. Never, and certainly not after agreeing with police to not do after bei. Investigated once previously. They just don’t. Does that prove that he is a pedophile? Nope. Should it give any reasonable person reason to think that he probably is a pedophile? Yep, but it’s not proof.

Grown men have often showered with boys in a communal setting. My father often took me into communal showers at public swimming pools, the beach, and at camp sites. I understand that JS was not the father in this situation but I think he saw himself as a father figure. It's easy for me to believe that C&S wouldn't have been startled by this.

I agree with you that innocent or not, JS should have been scared to death of ever finding himself in that position again. That's why I think he had issues. I don't know what to believe about the most serious allegations against him. Some could be true but others simply don't pass the smell test.

 

[bdgan]

Right, the idea that boys and men share a group shower together is not such an alarming thing. The fact that it’s alone and involves physical contact is extremely alarming.

What physical contact are you talking about? Holding a boy up to rinse his hair? Snapping towels? Remember, JS was like a father figure to these boys.

• McQueary didn't tell his father or Dranov about any sexual activity (unless you believe he did and they lied).
• McQueary admittedly said that he used soft language with Joe.
• C&S testified that McQueary never told them about sexual assault.
• Even the alleged victim said that nothing happened that night.

I'm not trying to proclaim JS's innocence. I'm trying to explain why the PSU administration might not have responded as aggressively as many people think they should have done. I do not believe that knew about physical (sexual) contact.

BTW, I don't let C&S completely off the hook. It's Human Resources 101 to clearly document these types of claims and the response. They failed miserably in this case, but that doesn't mean they knowingly covered up for a pedophile.

 

[Connorpozlee]

Grown men have often showered with boys in a communal setting. My father often took me into communal showers at public swimming pools, the beach, and at camp sites. I understand that JS was not the father in this situation but I think he saw himself as a father figure. It's easy for me to believe that C&S wouldn't have been startled by this.

I agree with you that innocent or not, JS should have been scared to death of ever finding himself in that position again. That's why I think he had issues. I don't know what to believe about the most serious allegations against him. Some could be true but others simply don't pass the smell test.

Yeah, fair take.
I’ve never really had much of an issue with how Curley and Schultz handled it.

 

[Connorpozlee]

What physical contact are you talking about? Holding a boy up to rinse his hair? Snapping towels? Remember, JS was like a father figure to these boys.

• McQueary didn't tell his father or Dranov about any sexual activity (unless you believe he did and they lied).
• McQueary admittedly said that he used soft language with Joe.
• C&S testified that McQueary never told them about sexual assault.
• Even the alleged victim said that nothing happened that night.

I'm not trying to proclaim JS's innocence. I'm trying to explain why the PSU administration might not have responded as aggressively as many people think they should have done. I do not believe that knew about physical (sexual) contact.

BTW, I don't let C&S completely off the hook. It's Human Resources 101 to clearly document these types of claims and the response. They failed miserably in this case, but that doesn't mean they knowingly covered up for a pedophile.

Dealing just with the first shower incident in ‘98 he admitted to hugging the boy in the shower. He was 11 at the time. I don’t by the whole, “like a father figure” angle, but let’s go with that. Do you have sons? Would you ever have considered having done that with your own 11-year old son? Honestly, think about that. Being naked with your son who is also naked and presumably on the verge of puberty and hugging him.
I agree with you about the documentation from the administrators. They should have had a paper trail to back up their actions. That’s a whole different mess.

 

[indynittany]

I’m not sure that it’s necessarily not illegal though. If you and I were in a group shower alone together and I grab you and start soaping you up and hugging you, would that meet the criteria of a sexual assault?

It's only sexual assault if the assault is sexual! Duh! That doesn't mean what you've described isn't assault.

 

[Connorpozlee]

It's only sexual assault if the assault is sexual! Duh! That doesn't mean what you've described isn't assault.

What if the person I did it to didn’t want it to happen? If I hugged you naked in a shower and you didn’t consent to it, wouldn’t you think that could be sexual assault?
-For the record, I am asking this honestly as I do not know the laws. But I would have to think it would matter more how the person it was happening to felt about it than the person doing it.

 

[Nittany Ziggy]

Alone, under the same shower head with him initiating contact with you? After being investigated by police and agreeing to never do that again? Showering with the gym teacher/coach and classmates/teammates and what Jerry has even admitted to doing are vastly different things.

I know you didn’t say that, that was the point.

You’ve never seen me say that, though. I just find it disingenuous when people use showering in the same group shower with their coaches/gym teachers as comparable to what we know Sandusky was doing (I’m not saying that is what bbrown was doing here as I don’t think that’s his MO).

“Some of these kids don’t have basic hygiene skills,” Rominger said. “Teaching a person to shower at the age of 12 or 14 sounds strange to some people, but people who work with troubled youth will tell you there are a lot of juvenile delinquents and people who are dependent who have to be taught basic life skills like how to put soap on their body.” That quote was taken from the NY Post on December 15, 2011.

12-14 year olds don’t need somebody to show them how to put soap on their bodies. And if they do, I don’t know of one person in the field of working with troubled youth who would ever physically do it for them, let alone in a shower alone with them.

Yeah, I agree with this unc. Let’s be honest and call it what it is, not make believe it was something less than what is was.
Am I right that would you work in a therapeutic setting, or so I have you confused with somebody else? If so, the showering activity alone would send up some major red flags for you, wouldn’t it?

What point do you think I miss? If it’s that people of varying ages share group showers, then I haven’t missed that.

Ahhhh..... my bad.
Right, let’s call it what it was and take mindful consideration of what it was.

I think you might be mistaking me for somebody else but let me clarify for you.
What I do think is black and white is this: Grown men do not shower alone with boys and have physical contact with them when doing so. Never, and certainly not after agreeing with police to not do after bei. Investigated once previously. They just don’t. Does that prove that he is a pedophile? Nope. Should it give any reasonable person reason to think that he probably is a pedophile? Yep, but it’s not proof.

Right, the idea that boys and men share a group shower together is not such an alarming thing. The fact that it’s alone and involves physical contact is extremely alarming.

They’ve certainly kept to plan of just waiting it out until the vast, vast majority don't care anymore.

I’m not sure that it’s necessarily not illegal though. If you and I were in a group shower alone together and I grab you and start soaping you up and hugging you, would that meet the criteria of a sexual assault?

Yeah, fair take.
I’ve never really had much of an issue with how Curley and Schultz handled it.

Dealing just with the first shower incident in ‘98 he admitted to hugging the boy in the shower. He was 11 at the time. I don’t by the whole, “like a father figure” angle, but let’s go with that. Do you have sons? Would you ever have considered having done that with your own 11-year old son? Honestly, think about that. Being naked with your son who is also naked and presumably on the verge of puberty and hugging him.
I agree with you about the documentation from the administrators. They should have had a paper trail to back up their actions. That’s a whole different mess.

What if the person I did it to didn’t want it to happen? If I hugged you naked in a shower and you didn’t consent to it, wouldn’t you think that could be sexual assault?
-For the record, I am asking this honestly as I do not know the laws. But I would have to think it would matter more how the person it was happening to felt about it than the person doing it.

 

[Ezcheez]

Grown men have often showered with boys in a communal setting. My father often took me into communal showers at public swimming pools, the beach, and at camp sites. I understand that JS was not the father in this situation but I think he saw himself as a father figure. It's easy for me to believe that C&S wouldn't have been startled by this.

I agree with you that innocent or not, JS should have been scared to death of ever finding himself in that position again. That's why I think he had issues. I don't know what to believe about the most serious allegations against him. Some could be true but others simply don't pass the smell test.

you are one sick SOB for this rationalization. I’m flaming you on the test board for this.

 

[Chris92]

you are one sick SOB for this rationalization. I’m flaming you on the test board for this.

A test board flaming?

 

[bdgan]

you are one sick SOB for this rationalization. I’m flaming you on the test board for this.

What I said is factual, not a rationalization. I haven't claimed that JS is innocent. I simply said that it's credible that C&S considered this to be horseplay, partly because they weren't alarmed that a father figure showering with a boy was a major red flag.

Obviously you disagree which is fine. But that means you believe that MM didn't tell his own father or Dranov about sexual assault but he did tell C&S (even though their account of MM's report was similar to that of JM & Dranov).

 

[Bob78]

BTW, I don't let C&S completely off the hook. It's Human Resources 101 to clearly document these types of claims and the response. They failed miserably in this case, but that doesn't mean they knowingly covered up for a pedophile.

I'm torn on this point. To me, this common take feels like it has a lot of hindsight involved. Remember that McQ did NOT report anything sexual to anyone.... until he was more or less 'cornered' later on in 2010 or early 2011 or whenever. C&S had his nonspecific report, they had the 1998 incident and its resolution of 'nothing happened', and they had TSM's Dr. Jack and all his credentials telling them that they were crazy to think JS was sexually assaulting a kid.

So..... now what to do with all that, along with your own disbelief that someone you've known all this time could be such a person, who has also denied anything and has offered to give more information? (and I believe that was likely all part of JS's grooming approach, which had been wildly successful to that point). While they have admitted they should have looked into things more deeply, at the time (2001), their actions were logical based on what they knew at the time.

Plus, JS was no longer a PSU employee, so is HR the right place to go? They went to an attorney with what they knew. Document more thoroughly, certainly. I'm not sure that anyone else in that place and time would have done much different based on all that information at that time.

Anyway, it's all moot. I just know that Curley and Schultz are really good people who would never even consider doing anything to harm another person, let alone a kid. I give them a huge benefit of the doubt here based on the type of people they are.

 

[indynittany]

I'm torn on this point. To me, this common take feels like it has a lot of hindsight involved. Remember that McQ did NOT report anything sexual to anyone.... until he was more or less 'cornered' later on in 2010 or early 2011 or whenever. C&S had his nonspecific report, they had the 1998 incident and its resolution of 'nothing happened', and they had TSM's Dr. Jack and all his credentials telling them that they were crazy to think JS was sexually assaulting a kid.

So..... now what to do with all that, along with your own disbelief that someone you've known all this time could be such a person, who has also denied anything and has offered to give more information? (and I believe that was likely all part of JS's grooming approach, which had been wildly successful to that point). While they have admitted they should have looked into things more deeply, at the time (2001), their actions are logical and based on what they knew at the time.

Plus, JS was no longer a PSU employee, so is HR the right place to go? They went to an attorney with what they knew. Document more thoroughly, certainly. I'm not sure that anyone else in that place and time would have done much different based on all that information at that time.

Anyway, it's all moot. I just know that Curley and Schultz are really good people who would never even consider doing anything to harm another person, let alone a kid. I give them a huge benefit of the doubt here based on the type of people they are.

Just tell Jerry to wear swim trunks in the shower!

 

[marshall23]

you are one sick SOB for this rationalization. I’m flaming you on the test board for this.

LOL

 

[marshall23]

Either Dr. Dranov, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Joe Paterno lied.....or MM lied. I know what I believe.
Either Allan Myers lied when he repeatedly spoke in defense of Jerry Sandusky or he lied when he took a settlement. I know what I believe.
I honestly don't know what the truth is about Sandusky. I would like to see another trial. A trial that would give everyone some insight and be unlike the one that was rushed to the finish line by a disgraced prosecutor and judge.
Perhaps there would be a mixed result. JS may indeed be guilty of some charges and innocent on others. I just don't understand folks who are afraid of letting the truth see the light of day.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I’m not sure that it’s necessarily not illegal though. If you and I were in a group shower alone together and I grab you and start soaping you up and hugging you, would that meet the criteria of a sexual assault?

If you hug me on the street (fully clothed) and I don't want you hugging me, if you do it for sexual gratification, it could be sexual assault. So the shower and the nakedness aren't the deciding factors.

 

[GTACSA]

What I said is factual, not a rationalization. I haven't claimed that JS is innocent. I simply said that it's credible that C&S considered this to be horseplay, partly because they weren't alarmed that a father figure showering with a boy was a major red flag.

Obviously you disagree which is fine. But that means you believe that MM didn't tell his own father or Dranov about sexual assault but he did tell C&S (even though their account of MM's report was similar to that of JM & Dranov).

What activity do you think MM described to his father that would have prompted his father to ask if MM had seen insertion/penetration?

 

[Connorpozlee]

If you hug me on the street (fully clothed) and I don't want you hugging me, if you do it for sexual gratification, it could be sexual assault. So the shower and the nakedness aren't the deciding factors.

Does it really matter if I find it sexually gratifying though? If it was just up the person doing it there would never be a sexual assault.

 

[Chris92]

Does it really matter if I find it sexually gratifying though? If it was just up the person doing it there would never be a sexual assault.

It certainly does legally:
The judge also said it is not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower with a boy -- poor judgment in and of itself does not amount to criminality. It's also not a crime if an adult’s actions make a child feel uncomfortable. The judge said, "A display of innocent affection is not a crime. However, if it was performed with the intent of sexual gratification, it is a crime."
Trial coverage

 

[Connorpozlee]

It certainly does legally:
The judge also said it is not necessarily a crime for a man to take a shower with a boy -- poor judgment in and of itself does not amount to criminality. It's also not a crime if an adult’s actions make a child feel uncomfortable. The judge said, "A display of innocent affection is not a crime. However, if it was performed with the intent of sexual gratification, it is a crime."
Trial coverage

So if you and I are in a group shower, I can walk up to you and give you a hug without any fear of it being a crime because I’m not gay? Or would it be a crime because we are both adults? If another man hugged me in a shower I would want him charged with a crime.

 

[bdgan]

I'm torn on this point. To me, this common take feels like it has a lot of hindsight involved. Remember that McQ did NOT report anything sexual to anyone....

If somebody reports something significant enough to warrant a call to an attorney..... I say you've got to document things.

 

[bdgan]

So if you and I are in a group shower, I can walk up to you and give you a hug without any fear of it being a crime because I’m not gay? Or would it be a crime because we are both adults? If another man hugged me in a shower I would want him charged with a crime.

JS was a father figure to these boys and C&S knew this.

But yes, if you tried to give me a naked hug it would be creepy.