McQueary E-mail Claims He Stopped 2002 Attack and Talked to Police

A second e-mail sent by coach Mike McQueary has surfaced in the Allentown Morning Call. In this Nov. 8 e-mail, McQueary says he did stop the alleged attack on a young boy by Jerry Sandusky, and that he discussed the matter with police.

"I did stop it, not physically, but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room."

....[I] did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police.

Neither the Penn State police nor the Pennsylvania State Police have responded to requests for information from the paper about the e-mail.

I wonder how many careers will be ruined before this case is over.

< Court Rules OWS Has No Right to Remain in Park | Questions About Sandusky's Legal Strategy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So, why (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 07:57:30 PM EST
    wasn't that obviously important detail mentioned in the grand jury report, or the indictment?

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:03:54 PM EST
    this is about as clear an instance of CYA as can be imagined.

    I'll say it again . . . (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:35:08 PM EST
    as in previous exchanges here:  The indictment carefully excerpted a lot from his testimony, because he will be needed to testify again.

    Reading the indictment, I was struck by the tone of specificity in McQueary's testimony that then seemed to suddenly go vague, and then I could see inexpert editing.  It seemed clear that there is reason for the rest of what he had to say to not be clear now to the defense team for Sandusky.


    Prosecutors get to write the grand jury (none / 0) (#26)
    by Buckeye on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:54:54 AM EST
    reports.  They can include or exclude whatever they want.  They can describe it how they want as long as they do not misstate facts.

    That is why you always have to wait, understand the evidence, and hear both sides of a story before assuming guilt, ruining people's reputations and careers.


    Of course (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:00:52 AM EST
    Since the report clearly states that McQueary testified that he did not have contact with the police, don't you think that would be a bit foolish of a prosecutor to write that since any defense attorney (not to mention first year law student) would bring that up at trial?

    Well (none / 0) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    in a roundabout way, it may have been. Schultz oversaw campus police.  McQueary talked to Schultz.  Thus, McQueary figured he talked to police. Although, I would have immediately called the police the night of the "alleged" crime, I certainly would have considered that talking to Schultz was talking to the police.  Of course, if that was what he was referencing, it might have been good to explain that.

    Here's an excerpt from the email: (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:55:40 AM EST
    "I did stop it, not physically ... but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room ... I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police ...."

    "discussions with police AND with the official at the university in charge of police"

    That indicates that he had discussions with both.


    Maybe (none / 0) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    Maybe Schultz brought a cop with him? LOL, I dunno.  The whole organization there was like a mafia, with backs being scratched all over the place....

    "I wonder how many careers . . . (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:07:12 PM EST
    . . . will be ruined before this case is over."

    almost certainly not as many as should IMO

    There has been an over reaction (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:47:57 PM EST
    There has been an over reaction about Coach Mike McQueary all along.

    I have thought that his actions were exemplary all along even before this last information.

    The people that acted totally wrongly were the Administration officials, the VP in charge of the Police and the President of the University.  They swept this under the rug.  Their purpose and intent is clear and I think criminal besides the Grand Jury lying.

    Paterno and the Athletic director also did not perform well because they do have direct and greater responsibility for the facilities than McQueary does.  I am sure Joe would have said that the locker room and shower was a part of "HIS HOUSE."  He was essentially the Captain of that ship and while the Athletic Director might have been the Admiral in charge of the fleet, still Captain Paterno was "the Commander" on the scene.

    We can consider the President and VP as the civilian elected officials and we all know what those b*st*rds are going to do.  Cover their *sses.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:39:29 PM EST
    See my past comments, too.  I have not understood crucifying McQueary, the one who did come forward, did (as I had guessed from signs of editing) ensure that the rape stopped, did talk to sworn officers, etc.

    Oh dear (none / 0) (#15)
    by sj on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:37:47 PM EST
    I agree with you.  Very disconcerting.

    I don't believe coaches feel (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    that locker room and showers are part of their "house"--certainly not the showers. Maybe the football offices and meeting rooms and the stadium field and practice fields, but these other facilities. Small point, and I'm not saying I'm right on this either.

    You had to have been there. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    my football coach ran the schools athletic facilities.  He also coached baseball.  
    He actually wasn't the athletic director.  An old coach was the athletic director and the only thing he still coached was track.

    I was on the football team, and the track team and the baseball team.  Naturally a large sized guy like myself did large sized things, and I played first base on the baseball team and threw the shot and discus for the track team.  I was an excellent shot and discus thrower and was a close competitor in the State Championships.  I was only fair to sometimes good First baseman.

    The football coach considered and acted like our whole high school stadium and the facilities there, the athletes, locker rooms, shower, bleachers, press box, all the surrounding fields, etc. was his own personal property.  He told the Athletic Director what to do.  
    Coach (football) would decide whether or not I would run track or play baseball on the days we had both events.  If the baseball team went out of town, I went out of town no matter what the track team was doing.  If we had baseball and track on the same day at our Stadium, I would scoot up to the track field and toss a shot or discus.  The track people were nice about that.  Sometimes other teams had the same problem with one of their athletes.  But usually there I would only get 1 or two tosses at any event.  Fortunately that was usually enough.

    I had to tell the football coach myself that I was going to the State Track Meet to compete and not play baseball those days.  
    I was bigger than either coach, but Coach(football), who was an all conference tight end in college though he was small for that position, looked hard and mean like some old Greek Trawler Skipper.  I was quaking in my shoes when I stood up to him when I was a Junior in HS.  Then when I did it for only the second time in my HS career and had gone into his office my senior year, right before the Championship Meet, he knew what I was going to say, and he only threw a roll of socks at me and told me disdainfully to "get out of here and go play track boy."  I actually considered that that was his way of being nice.

    You had to have been there.  A football coach is God Almighty on his turf.


    Interesting about your coach (none / 0) (#44)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    and your experiences, which I presume was in high school due to the references to state championship. My experience comes from having played two sports in college, including football, and having 16 coaches on my wife's side of the family. Certainly, the college coaches that I knew and know didn't have a similar view as your coach. There were and are facilities people who oversee the facilities in college, and, in my experience, the college coaches don't have to run the facilities. Again, not saying I believed I was right on my earlier comment. I just thought your view looked at bit odd.

    Then you should have an idea. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    Yes, what I just described was in High School.
    I didn't play football at the Academy though I had a chance to walk on.  Academics were to come first.  Still sometimes I think about it.
    I did participate in track and field though, and had many wonderful experiences.  Tossing a shot and discus didn't require a lot of time.  
    By the way, it grieves me that Maryland has just shut down their track programs.  We competed with them.

    You are right about the college coaches letting other people run the facilities on a day to day basis, but if you think carefully you will realize that the important decisions all come from the coaches.  
    In this case there were two Football figures in that locker room with a young boy.  One a retired major assistant coach who just a few years before had been a possible Coach Paterno successor, and a younger grad-assistant-coach on his way up, who had been a star for Coach Paterno.

    There is no way in hell, that Coach Paterno didn't deliberately turn his head away from the situation because of the unsavory type situation it was.  He just plain didn't want to be involved or have HIS program tainted by the situation.  Then he must have seen that the retired assistant (I don't even want to say his name) was not brought before the bar of justice.  He still ran a young boy's charity!

    And by the way, it seems now that Coach Paterno deeded his and his wife's house to her in July this year for the sum of $1.00 and love and affection.

    So what did he know about the Grand Jury investigation and all the people including himself that testified there?


    (And on another note, I would expect that Coach Paterno has suffered greatly from this, and is very depressed that his "legacy" is tainted.  His name is now being removed from trophies!  From honor rolls.  It is like having your life wiped away for a man like that.  His family should take care to make sure he is safe.)


    Why do you think Paterno (none / 0) (#47)
    by Green26 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:00:55 PM EST
    turned his head away, i.e. what's the basis for your statement? He reported it to his boss, the AD, almost immediately. The AD involved the vice president in charge of, among other things, the campus police. At some point, I believe the president was informed.

    I know we don't know exactly what was said and what role was played by the various parties, but why would Paterno or any football coach do something different? What authority would he have to do anything different? I don't think it's the role of the football coach to make decisions regarding this type of incident that happened to have occurred in the shower of some athletic building.


    I don't know how much discussion they had but (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    Concerning the 2002 incident.

    I think that these men soon realized that the process (the story as reporters would call it) would stop if they sat on their hands.  They probably watched carefully and were ready with reasonable arguments about their procedural slowness if it were discovered right off.

    Perhaps they didn't even start out with this intention, but their reluctance to come out immediately to the police and press slowed their reactions and then they saw that nothing was happening and "all was well with their lives and their precious institution" and so they did the minimum things that wouldn't attract attention or turmoil.

    I have seen where "administrative remedies and procedure changes" were implemented in similar though less horrendous events.

    Pardon me if I quote "don't rock the boat."

    After a while, it all fell into place.  If Coach Sandusky had not continued his sick ways, it would have worked.  Isn't that how all the great tragedies in literature commence.  A little lie here, a little look the other way, a little bribe, a little mutual convenience, and finally the castle walls are tumbling.

    I don't see these guys gathering in a musty cellar room and signing pledges of silence in children's blood.  Yet in my opinion that is what they did, and I hope they all hang.

    I personally would be proud to spring the trap under all of them, though I think that there would have to be a lottery for the privilege.

    I have no patience or mercy for these people and their "enablers."


    You weren't there. (none / 0) (#48)
    by rdandrea on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    Never played college sports.  Never went to Penn State.  Never knew coach Paterno.

    Even though I happen to agree with part of your post, there's no "there" there.

    The problem with the reporting and commentary on the Penn State story is all the people who don't know sh*t.

    More facts, less opinion.  Works every time.


    Exempary ? (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    Adequate maybe.

    The thing is he did the exact same thing Paterno did, with he added bonus of actually witnessing the event.  He notified his supervisors.  How is this different then what Paterno did ?

    I would hardly consider an after the fact email as fact, but who knows.  If he stopped it, then good for him, he did what any reasonable adult would have done.

    The line about him contacting the police doesn't jive with the actions and firings IMO.  There would be no need to even tell Paterno if the cops were involved and certainly no reason to fire him.  The assumption is that Paterno didn't do enough, but more then the cops ?

    If he did call the cops, the actions of the Penn State Board were wrong, no one should have been fired or even under heat.


    Sorry, don't you mean (none / 0) (#43)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:00:03 PM EST
     McQueary's reaction was decidedly  an under reaction.

    NO! He did not stop the attack (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    Stopping the attack would have been these actions:
    charging in and throwing Sandusky off the young boy;
    picking up the child in his arms and carrying him to a car,
    then driving the boy to the nearest Emergency Room.

    How do you know (none / 0) (#34)
    by Lora on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    how that would have turned out?

    How do you know the boy would not have been injured further in the struggle?  Perhaps traumatized worse than he already was?  How do you know that Sandusky wouldn't have threatened the boy, wouldn't have threatened to accuse Mcqueary of the deed and been successful, destroying not only Mcqueary's career, but destroying any possible credibility as a witness, wouldn't have done a dozen harmful things that might have been worse for the victim in the long run?

    It always works out great in the movies.  Not necessarily so in life.

    You weren't there.  You don't know.


    To answer Lora (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    "How do you know that:
    Sandusky wouldn't have threatened the boy..., Sandusky probably did
    Sandusky "wouldn't have threatened to accuse Mcqueary of the deed and{destroy} Macquerys career..." Sandusky probably tried
    "...destroying any possible credibility as a witness" Sandusky could try but there were all accusations against him on file not Mcqueary.
    ...[couldn't] "a dozen harmful things [have happened] that might have been worse for the victim in the long run?"
    well, let's see the attack could have recommenced; the anal penetration could have been followed by another form of rape; Sandusky could have showered the boy clean while exclaiming how much he truly loved the boy;  Sandusky could give the boy a lollipop and drive him home...

    Unless Mcqueary had the stomach to stand and watch the proceedings, of course, he would not know what was going to happen, but he saw a crime against a child happening flesh and blood in front of his eyes!  It was a time for action not a time for negociation with an abuser and the victim.
    No, Lora,  I wasn't there in the Penn State locker room but I have been there!

    Not convinced (none / 0) (#52)
    by Lora on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    I'm not saying one course of action would have been better or worse than another.  What I'm saying is that we don't know enough about the situation to judge McQueary for not barging in and stopping the act.  

    Didn't McQueary say Sandusky (none / 0) (#53)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    and the kid saw him? I think I read that somehwere. If so, I suspect that whatever was occurring probably stopped at that time, and there would not have been a reason to intravene.

    Sorry, I respectfully submit again, (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:47:23 PM EST
    that the moment someone saw a grown man with his_ _ _ _ _ in the _ _ _ _  of a young boy a sane human being would not just stop the process but follow through by physically removing the child from the presence of that grown man.

    I cannot understand how a sane person could continue to have cordial relations with that same man for, let's see, how many years?

    How could that sight be erased from the mind's eye?


    Okay, fair point. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:44:19 PM EST
    However, I don't think most people would grab the child.

    Also, what's your basis for saying McQueary maintained cordial relations with Sandusky?


    4 Million Dollars! (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    4 Million Dollars of their own money is the number I have seen that the Paternos have given to Penn State in various ways.

    this is a prime case of man's pride, greed, avarice, and "win at any cost" attitude.

    You could write an Opera about this event.  Perhaps some day it will inspire one.

    But still looking at your statement,

    As I stated above, I now believe that there is somebody higher up who's being protected -- and it ain't Joe Paterno, or even President Graham Spanier.

    I must say that I don't believe that we can add this event to the list of dastardly deeds committed by  G.W. Bush.

    Well at least that is my take on it.

    understood but the harm to those boys (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    the harm to those boys should not be overshadowed by an institution and some of its most prized employees that could not monitor the humanity of themselves.

    If the incident was discussed with the police, (none / 0) (#2)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    why were Paterno and the AD fired? Is there an obligation to report incidents to multiple police forces? Ha-ha.

    There is a federal obligation (none / 0) (#11)
    by Towanda on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 09:37:44 PM EST
    to report all occurrences on campus from a list of crimes, including sexual assaults, and PSU did not do so. I read that, so I know that they're at fault for that much.

    But the charges against Curley and Schultz were more for perjury, in some language used in Pennsylvania.  Their problem is participating, allegedly, in some coverup.  Whether it was PSU's alone or a larger coverup, I dunno.


    The federal act to report (none / 0) (#16)
    by Green26 on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:50:17 PM EST
    doesn't apply to this situation, in my view. The federal law involves reporting the statistics for campus assaults, etc. on students. Other than what one person supposedly observed and may or may not have reported, there's no evidence or conviction of a crime. It doesn't involve a student. The federal law doesn't require the reporting of what was seen on campus to legal authorities.

    Correct to a point, we agree (none / 0) (#37)
    by Towanda on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:03:12 PM EST
    -- if you reread what I wrote -- that the federal law is about reporting a list of crimes on campuses, and not about reporting hierarchies within campuses.

    However, and I just didn't want to take the time to go into this in the previous comment, nor do I have time now to do much more, but:  You may be unaware of the interpretations of the federal law in terms of what it means for reporting within campuses.  Basically, it has been made clear that campuses have to have clear and enforced reporting structures within to ensure reporting beyond.

    And what that means is that PSU has a problem -- if the feds enforce. That's the larger problem that takes higher up, even to the White House. Other fed agencies are lacking in enforcement staffing, I'm told by staff I know at some.  So the PSU situation may put on a push to staff the many vacant positions in the federal government.

    Or not, of course, as I see so little attention to this problem of lots of fed positions not filled.  I don't know why.  Saves money in the fed budget to not burden the 1% even more? :-)


    You keep saying this, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Green26 on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 11:46:56 PM EST
    but I believe you are wrong that anything was required to be reported in this situation. It's a statistical thing. It's a report to the Dept of Education. It becomes publicly available information. Witnessing a crime or alleged crime on campus does not create a reporting obligation under this federal act.

    Unclear (to me anyway) from (none / 0) (#22)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:09:56 AM EST
    McQuery's quote above whether he is talking about campus police or the local city/state police.

    If he indeed talked to someone outside the university, then I think he did the right thing. I don't see reporting to the campus police, who have a stake in the reputation of the university, as doing enough.  


    Schulz (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by smott on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:38:23 AM EST
    Was head of campus police IIRC. SO perhaps that is the reference

    a wee bit more serious (none / 0) (#36)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    wiping egg?

    like the coliseumsdport of ancient Rome (none / 0) (#45)
    by Palli on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    yes, then I agree- football, a spectator sport to divert the public from things that matter in a society.

    one thing though (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:05:47 PM EST
    as pathetic as I think McQueary and his actions were I am not at all sure about the rabid rush to make laws that people have to report stuff or be somehow legally liable.  that seems far to easy to abuse.

    All of them (none / 0) (#6)
    by rdandrea on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 08:15:35 PM EST
    I wonder how many careers will be ruined before this case is over.

    That would be why he's on paid leave (none / 0) (#13)
    by Natal on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:12:06 PM EST
    and not fired.  He did everything that needed to be done from his side.

    so how come that doesn't come out (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:25:11 PM EST
    in the grand jury report? according to what's been reported, mr. mcqueary testified, under oath, that he left the locker room (no mention of stopping the assault)and went home. later that evening he called his father and told him what he had witnessed. his father advised him to tell mr. paterno, which he testified he did the next day.

    again, no mention of stopping the assault (or removing the child), and directly contacting any police, campus, local or state.

    the options:

    1. that portion of the report wasn't released and/or reported, and so the media made up what was reported. seems a tad unlikely to me, given all the libel/defamation laws and such. but then again, who knows?

    2. mr. mcqueary perjured himself in front of the grand jury, and is only now telling the truth, a truth which makes him look much, much better than those lies he told the grand jury. possible, though for the life of me, i am at a total loss as to why any semi-rational person would do this.

    3. he told the truth, under oath, to the grand jury, and is now trying to cover his butt. of course, one would (reasonably, i think) assume that a check of all police records (campus, local, state) should confirm this claim.

    4. mr. mcqueary is a complete moron, and probably shouldn't be allowed out by himself, much less helping coach a Div. I college football team.

    maybe there are more plausible options, i just can't think of any right now.

    the report states and I quote (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 06:02:49 AM EST
    "the graduate assistant was never questioned by  university police and no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December 2010"

    and thats about the 2002 incident,  not the 1998 one or the 2000 one or any other that we may not yet know about.


    Maybe the prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:49:47 AM EST
    did not want to include this in the report.

    Others have tried to make the point (none / 0) (#17)
    by Natal on Tue Nov 15, 2011 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    that the report did not say he didn't contact police.  Just passing on what I've read.

    actually the report (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 05:57:22 AM EST
    states plainly that he had no contact with the campus police.

    Start reading (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 08:59:41 AM EST
    on page 6.

    BTW - File is in PDF.


    I will surmise on why this hadn't come out. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:05:48 AM EST
    My dad, a lawyer, once told me that a Grand Jury was controlled by the prosecutor who might ask the questions he wanted and so direct the procedure as he wished for whatever purpose he desired.  Likewise as we sometimes see, a person might never even be convicted for a crime but still be convicted of perjury before the Grand Jury.

    Likewise lawyers at a trial might do the same thing with their questioning.  There is of course supposedly another lawyer on the other side to contest what is said.

    (I know I am probably singing to the choir here.)

    Personally I was and am offended that the purpose of the defense and the prosecution isn't to garner the truth but rather to "win" their case in what is called adversarial law.  We can easily see that the best lawyers win a lot because of their skills and resources rather than what the truth of the matter is.  People are imprisoned all the time because of these processes.  We know this because later they are freed when better lawyers get a chance at the case.

    A few times when I testified in the military, I realized that the lawyer that was questioning me was attempting to elicit what I considered to be a partial answer that really didn't address the facts but that would help his side. Some showed considerable skill at it.  

    It didn't work.


    The proceedings may be held in strict (none / 0) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 07:20:07 AM EST
    confidence, but let's not kid ourselves that those Penn State employees and members of the athletic department who were being subpoenaed were not at least discussing the fact that they had been subpoenaed.

    And something else to consider: if there is an ongoing investigation into activities or actions that involve people in their capacity as employees, which leads to being subpoenaed to testify, I'm pretty sure there also had to be ongoing involvement on the part of the university's legal team - first, in being contacted by authorities to get permission to speak to these employees, and then, in having in-depth conversations with these employees about what they were likely to be asked, which had to involve knowing what they knew.  Because, let's remember that the university's lawyers' jobs would have been to determine what, if any, liability Penn State may have had in this whole mess - and that has to mean making sure they had identified every single worm that could possibly be in the can that was being opened up.

    Meanwhile, in this two-year period, there was little effort to curtail Sandusky's on-campus access; it's one thing to presume someone innocent until the judicial system has concluded its process, but it's another to risk the well-being of children while that all plays out.

    I understand presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt, but as a parent, who doesn't live in a courtroom, there is no way I am risking that it will be my children who will bear the consequence of that presumption being wrong - and I would like to think that schools and youth-oriented organizations would not assume that risk on behalf of the children in their care, either.  


    The University official in charge of (none / 0) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    campus police is the VP charged with perjury.

    a person in the "investigation" says: (none / 0) (#51)
    by Palli on Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 06:07:19 AM EST
    "...there is nothing that happens at State College that Joe Paterno doesn't know..."

    If this statement is true that is a terrible admission about an academic institution.  Professors, professional associate staff and students should question the mission of their college.

    that comment was deleted for (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 12:29:03 AM EST
    reprinting the NY Times article. A link and a short paragraph is all that should be reprinted.