In a Friday appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Duke head basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski attacked Penn State’s handling of the departure of Joe Paterno as the school’s head football coach shortly after longtime PSU assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested and charged with dozens of crimes related to child sexual abuse on November 5, 2011.
While calling Penn State’s decision to quickly distance itself from Paterno “horrible” and a “real mistake”, Krzyzewski lauded Paterno for doing an “incredible job” at the school.
Here is the full text of Krzyzewski’s comments on Penn State and Paterno during his Friday appearance on CNN:
“It was horrible, and I’ve respected coach Paterno my entire life and had a chance to get to know him really well in the last year of his life. I thought it was really not well done, in handling the situation. It’s a difficult situation to encounter.
“You had somebody who’s given six decades of service to the university and done such an incredible job. Somehow, you have to let, something has to play out and respect the fact that you’ve gone through all these experiences for six decades. It doesn’t just go out the window right at the end. I thought it was a real mistake by Penn State’s leadership.
“If that happened in my area, I would look to work with my athletic director and my president to have a solution. And if that solution meant that I would step down, I would do it in a way which would be part of the solution, not like you’re just thrown out.
“You have to understand that leadership, you may be asked to step down and that’s part of being a leader.”
NBC News reports today that law enforcement authorities have uncovered emails that show Penn State President Graham Spanier, PSU Vice President Gary Schultz and PSU Athletic Director Tim Curley “discussed whether they needed to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late night encounter between a naked Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State shower room.”
NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff also noted of Penn State’s handling of the, “2001 allegation involving a late night encounter between a naked Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State shower room“:
Penn State even did legal research on the issue. But in one e-mail exchange two sources say Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz agreed it would be, quote, “humane” to Sandusky not to inform social services and the incident never got reported.
Video and text of the transcript of the NBC report, which concluded by noting that, “the investigation as to whether there’s a cover-up by Penn State officials is very active and going strong,” is below:
NBC News reporter Michael Isikoff: Jerry sandusky goes on trial today charged with repeatedly molesting young boys. Law enforcement officials tell NBC News Pennsylvania prosecutors are weighing bringing more charges in this case against former top Penn State officials for allegedly concealing what they knew about his conduct.
As sandusky goes to court, law enforcement sources tell NBC News investigators have obtained new evidence in this case. Internal e-mails and documents they say show former Penn State President Graham Spanier and others discussed whether they needed to tell authorities about a 2001 allegation involving a late night encounter between a naked Sandusky and a young boy in the Penn State shower room.
The sources say documents show Penn State even did legal research on the issue. But in one e-mail exchange two sources say Spanier and former vice president Gary Schultz agreed it would be, quote, “humane” to sandusky not to inform social services and the incident never got reported.
Sandusky, who denies all charges, is facing 52 counts of child sex abuse. Eight of his alleged victims are slated to testify. Among them, a young man known as Victim Six who first told Penn State in 1998 when he was 11 years old that Sandusky had bear-hugged him in the Penn State football locker room shower.
Dr. Alycia Chambers, the boy’s psychologist, submitted this report to Penn State police at the time, concluding Sandusky’s behavior fit that of a likely pedophile’s pattern.
NBC News reporter Isikoff: But a second psychologist reached a different conclusion and no charges were filed. (In 1998.)
Then-Penn State football graduate assistant Mike McQueary had originally testified to a grand jury he saw Sandusky in the shower with a young boy in March, 2002.
A new e-mail says Spanier, Schultz and former Penn State Athletic Director Tim Curley discussed what McQueary saw and whether to report it more than a year earlier.
Lawyers for Spanier, who was fired last September, did not return calls seeking comment.
Lawyers for Schultz and Curley said, “the information confirms conscientiously considered Mike McQueary ’s reports of observing inappropriate conduct, reported it to the university president Graham Spanier and deliberated about how to responsibly deal with the conduct.”
Legal sources say discovery of the e-mails show whatever happens in the Sandusky trial, the investigation as to whether there’s a cover-up by Penn State officials is very active and going strong.
In 1998 Penn State police discovered that current Nittany Lions football coach Jerry Sandusky had been showering with unrelated prepubescent boys in the school football team locker room.
(Who was the Penn State coach “present” while Sandusky, child showered?)
On May 19, 1998, Sandusky admitted to bear-hugging an 11-year-old boy while both were naked in the Penn State football team locker room shower. The Nittany Lions football coach also, at the time, did not deny touching the prepubescent boy’s “private parts” when confronted by the mother of the child – as police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on the conversation as part of a Penn State investigation.
Part of that Penn State police investigation involved Centre County (PA) Child and Youth Services, which assigned psychologist John Seasock to interview the 11-year-old boy on May 8, 1998, to get the child’s account of showering with the current Nittany Lions football coach in the Penn State football team locker room.
In his report to Penn State police on behalf of Centre County Child and Youth Services, the latter of which had previously licensed Sandusky as a foster parent, Seasock described what the 11-year-old boy, whose name was redacted from Seasock’s report, told him about showering with Sandusky on the Penn State campus:
<redacted> reported that he felt weird and that he just wanted to get showered and get out, he felt funny but again never said anything to Jerry about how he felt. <redacted> reported that he had just finished washing himself when Jerry came from behind, made a large growl and gave him what he termed as a large “bare hug” which he laughed at and thought was funny. <redacted> reported that Jerry basically gave him a hug around the guts and said he was going to squeeze his guts out, picked him up a bit and then put him down.
Seasock eventually concluded that Sandusky’s behavior with the prepubescent child in the Penn State football team locker room showers was “normal” – along with Sandusky’s admitted habit of showering with other children on the Penn State campus:
If one pays special attention to Jerry’s reported behavior, it will be found that Jerry engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as “(male) coach”. It appears that Mr. Sandusky engaged in a routine of behavior that has been repeated countless times over his history as a coach. All the interactions reported by <redacted> can be typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male.
Seasock, who said in his report that he was “not familiar with Penn State football” before learning of the Sandusky case, also noted that “another coach” had been “present” while Sandusky showered and “bare hugged” the naked, prepubescent child in the Penn State football team locker room:
7. Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility.
In closing Penn State’s 1998 police investigation of Sandusky’s practice of showering with children in the Penn State football team locker room, Penn State Detective Ronald Schreffler also noted in the official Penn State police report the following from psychologist Seasock’s evaluation:
SEASOCK said that he hasn’t heard of a 52-year-old becoming a pedophile
Sandusky has since been charged with 52 criminal counts relating to child sexual abuse of 10 alleged victims. Eight of the victims cited by the Pennsylvania Attorney General in its ongoing investigation of the longtime Penn State football coach were raped at locations inside and around Penn State football facilities.
Below is the text from Seasock’s 1998 report cited by Penn State in not continuing to pursue child sexual abuse charges against Sandusky at the time.
This referral was made by John Miller who is currently a case worker for Centre County Children and Youth Services. No other information was provided to the interviewer prior to the initial meeting with <redacted>.
Reason for Referral
<redacted> was referred to Renaissance Psychological Corporation for evaluation of possible sexual victimization.
<redacted> is an eleven year old Caucasian male of average height and weight who appeared to be his stated age. He was evaluated at the Centre County Children and Youth Services Office, located in Bellefonte, PA. He was brought to the interview site by his biological mother <redacted>. <redacted> was informed that he would be talking to a counselor who just had some questions to ask him.
Psychiatric History/Psychological History
History of Drug and Alcohol Use/Abuse
Results of Interview
Physical and Emotional Abuse
Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
The original purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether or not an incident of sexual victimization had occurred in <redacted>’s life. Upon the opening of the interview, this evaluator had asked <redacted> why he thought he was speaking to me today. <redacted>’s straight answer was, because of “Jerry”. This evaluator basically stated, “I don’t understand what you mean.” <redacted> went on to explain the following to this evaluator. <redacted> reported that Jerry is an older friend, an adult, who works with a program called Second Mile. <redacted> described Second Mile as a program for people with parents who have parents who are divorced or not married. He reports that he met his friend Jerry through Second Mile and then was invited to a game of football. He explained that this football game was a game of two-hand touch with some Penn State University players. He reported that approximately a week later he was invited to the locker room at Penn State University by Jerry, who evidently has some connections with the college. <redacted> reported that he was extremely thrilled at this offer. He reported that he and Jerry went to work out on machines that included things like treadmills and other various equipment pieces, then he and Jerry made up a games called Polish Locker and Polish Bowling [a ball made from sticky tape used by football players used to tape hands and joints was formed into a ball and was then kicked into a garbage can or used to knock over drinking cups]. <redacted> reported that after playing this game he wrestled with Jerry. <redacted>’s description of wrestling appeared to be more along the lines of horseplay that occurred for brief seconds during the transition from the workout area to the locker room. The horseplay incident basically consisted of <redacted> attacking Jerry while sitting on what was described as as mat which turned into some tickling. Upon assessment of the tickling there was nothing that appeared to be inappropriate to this evaluator. The tickling occurred for several seconds, as defined by <redacted>. This evaluator questioned <redacted> as to why he thought we were here to talk about Jerry, because what he had just told me appeared to be fine. <redacted> reported, “my mom was concerned that Jerry did something to me.” This evaluator questioned, “Did something?” <redacted> reported that Jerry at one point said that he was going to take a shower and that he asked if <redacted> needed a shower. <redacted> said yes. <redacted> did not relate any evidence of being forced into taking a shower and portrayed it as nothing more than an offer. <redacted> reported that he was nervous about the situation because he had never showered with an adult before but he did not state his feelings at any time to Jerry. <redacted> reported that he did take a shower at the Penn State facility with Jerry. <redacted> reported that he was sweaty and did actually feel he needed to take a shower. Again <redacted> did emphasize that at no time did he feel forced to take a shower. He related that Jerry gave him a towel and that he did feel uncomfortable taking his clothes off in front of another person. He related that Jerry appeared to have his own area which appeared to be a coach’s room where he disrobed and then went into the shower separately from <redacted>. He related that Jerry went in and showered first. <redacted> reported that the water was already running because the shower’s were turned on when they first entered the locker room so the water could warm up. <redacted> reported that he went into the shower and initially went to turn on another shower unit a distance from Jerry because he was uncomfortable. <redacted> reported that Jerry said that he already had a shower on and that he should use one that was already running, the shower was closer to Jerry and he did use that shower. <redacted> reported that he felt weird and that he just wanted to get showered and get out, he felt funny but again never said anything to Jerry about how he felt. <redacted> reported that he had just finished washing himself when Jerry came from behind, made a large growl and gave him what he termed as a large “bare hug” which he laughed at and thought was funny. <redacted> reported that Jerry basically gave him a hug around the guts and said he was going to squeeze his guts out, picked him up a bit and then put him down. He reported that the whole incident happened in a matter of several seconds and that no contact between bodies had occurred. At one point <redacted> reported that he still had shampoo on his head and that Jerry had lifted him up from behind and had stuck his face in the shower head to wash him off, this lasted several seconds and then he was placed back down on the shower floor. This was done half to get the soap out and half as what appeared to be a gag. <redacted> again portrayed this as fun. <redacted> reported as they exited the shower, Jerry turned the showers off, went back to his coaching area to get dried off and changed and that <redacted> had gone into a separate area to do the same. <redacted> related that after they got dressed, they left the locker room, got into Jerry’s car, and Jerry took him home. Jerry said that in the future he might call again, and <redacted> was dropped off at his residence.
<redacted> reported that many people have come to talk to him about this event and many people asked him if Jerry had touched him. <redacted> reported that nothing like this had never occurred. This interviewer questioned for any type of manipulation that could have possibly been done with <redacted>, and <redacted> related that there were never any secrets discussed, no threats that were ever made, no time when <redacted> felt that something sexual was going to happen to him, and that overall he had a good time. <redacted> reported that at present he still wants to see Jerry but because what happened in the shower was wrong, he couldn’t see Jerry. <redacted> related that as long as Jerry didn’t touch him or “try anything” he though things were fine. <redacted> felt it necessary to give the full name of Jerry which is Jerry Sandusky, and it was related that he is a Penn State Defensive coach. <redacted> asked if this interviewer knew him and I related to <redacted> that I am not familiar with Penn State football. <redacted> also reported that he has a friend named <redacted> who had a similar experience with Jerry. <redacted> related that he talked to <redacted> and told him that his mother was worried that they had been sexually abused. <redacted> related what he did with Jerry to <redacted> and <redacted> said that he did basically the same thing. This interviewer asked again if <redacted> felt that he had experienced what would be termed as sexual abuse, and <redacted> reported no. <redacted> was then asked to explain what sexual abuse meant and he was actually able to explain the appropriate definition as good touch, bad touch or when another person touches a child on their “penis”. It should be noted that this interviewer know that previous investigation had been done for the possibility of sexual abuse. The attempt of this interview was to possibly establish a pattern of what would typically seen in an adult sexual offender who would manipulate children into sexualized situations. Through this “cold interview with <redacted> there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children. This evaluator does work consistently with sexual offenders and does attempt to establish, through interview, the actual patterning of a sexual offender known as a motive for operation. Again from the interview with <redacted> there was no evidence of a sexual offense that occurred nor any consistent evidence of offense patterning.
Upon completion of an independent interview with <redacted> this evaluator had the opportunity to gain access to the prior interviews that had been done with <redacted> through the local police department and Children and Youth Services. It is evident that <redacted> gave explicitly consistent interviews with the local police department, Children and Youth Services and this interviewer. This fact does lend credence to the validity of what <redacted> had reported. There were only very slight differences between the interviews.
Through the statements that were consistently by <redacted> it does not appear that a sexual victimization occurred directly between <redacted> and Jerry Sandusky. However, there is still concern about whether or not <redacted> had been placed in a situation where he was being “groomed for future sexual victimization”. To either rule in or rule out this concern, one should specifically look at the testimony supplied by <redacted>. If one places such information under specific scrutiny it can be determined that <redacted> had not been groomed for future sexual behavior, nor did a situation of inappropriate sexual behavior occur. If one pays special attention to Jerry’s reported behavior, it will be found that Jerry engaged in behavior that can be considered indicative of most people termed as “(male) coach”. It appears that Mr. Sandusky engaged in a routine of behavior that has been repeated countless times over his history as a coach. All the interactions reported by <redacted> can be typically defined as normal between a healthy adult and a young adolescent male. The only cause of contention that would cause any doubt in the situation would be the fact that Jerry and <redacted> had taken a shower together. This immediately caused appropriate concern about whether or not a sexual victimization occurred which then puts all of the other activities into a framework which could have been used to groom a child for sexual behavior.
1. Through <redacted>’s reports there was no evidence of threat, intentional manipulation, or force designed to elicit sexual behavior.
2. <redacted> never disclosed any discomfort with the situation giving Jerry no opportunity to alter his behavior.
3. The reported wrestling was more indicative of horseplay, consistent with the developmental behavior of a young adolescent.
4. <redacted> specifically reported that he had never been touched sexually.
5. Mr. Sandusky changed in a separate area from <redacted> which is not consistent with how adult sexual offenders utilize children for sexual arousal. What usually happens in these events is that the adult watches the child disrobe and uses that to elicit sexual arousal within themselves. It was explicitly related in all three interviews that Mr. Sandusky did not evident sexual arousal in any way through various situations. Additionally what was missing was that at the initial onset of the day Mr. Sandusky did not view <redacted> changing into a different set of workout clothes, which as previously stated, would have been used for sexual arousal.
6. Mr. Sandusky had the opportunity to help <redacted> dry off which is also a patterning used for adult sexual offenders. If Mr. Sandusky was going to use the situation for his own sexual gratification would be expected to have engaged in such activity.
7. Through previous interviews it was apparent that there had been another coach present within the locker room/shower facility. An adult sexual offender, at all costs, attempt to do such activities within private areas.
8. The behavior exhibited by Mr. Sandusky is directly consistent with what can be seen as an expected daily routine of being a football coach. This evaluator spoke to various coaches from high school and college football teams and asked about their locker room behavior. Through verbal reports from these coaches it is not uncommon for them to shower with players. This appears to be a widespread acceptable situation, and it appears that Mr. Sandusky followed through with patterning that he has probably done without thought for many years. I believe the mistake that was made was that Mr. Sandusky did not take into account the pre-adolescent age of this boy and the level of sexual development that he was at.
9. The amount of physical contact that occurred between Mr. Sandusky and <redacted> is not consistent with what is commonly found in adult sexual offenders. There is usually ongoing touches that do not necessarily have to be reciprocated. Prolonged touches are what are usually used to elicit some sort of sexual arousal sequence.
10. It was not reported that Mr. Sandusky had purposely stared at <redacted> while in the shower according to <redacted>. Again, if Mr. Sandusky was using this child for sexual arousal, direct visual stimulation is what some adult sexual offenders utilize, again this is not consistent.
There are several other inconsistencies that follow throughout the report but at the present time, this evaluator does not feel that it is necessary to go into line by line statements.
Taking into account the large amount of data that has been gathered about this situation involving <redacted> it does not appear that a sexual offense nor does it appear that this young gentlemen is been placed in a situation where he is being groomed for future sexual behavior. What does appear evident to this evaluator is that we have a person who has been termed as a local football coach who was been <report cut off>
NBC News reported today that a State College-based Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology who interviewed an alleged victim of child sexual abuse by Jerry Sandusky in 1998 warned Penn State police at the time that Sandusky was a “likely pedophile.”
(See Ph.D.’s Full Report on Sandusky as “Likely Pedophile” Below)
Dr. Alycia Chambers reported the following of Sandusky to Penn State police during its investigation of the then-current Nittany Lions football coach after Sandusky was accused of inappropriate behavior with two young boys in the Penn State locker room shower in 1998:
“My consultants agree that the incidents meet all of our definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile’s pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a ‘loving,’ ‘special’ relationship.
“One colleague, who has contact with the Second Mile, confirms that Mr. Sandusky is reasonably intelligent and thus, could hardly have failed to understand the way his behavior would be interpreted, if known. His position at the Second Mile and his interest in abused boys would suggest that he was likely to have had knowledge with regard to child abuse and might even recognize this behavior as a typical pedophile ‘overture.’”
NBC News also reported today that the Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology ..
.. gave her report to Penn State police Officer Ronald Schreffler on May 7, 1998, along with a cover letter that highlighted “the gravity of the incidents.” Chambers had also reported the incident to the Pennsylvania “suspected child abuse” hotline, where officials wrote up their own report identifying Sandusky as the “AP” or “Alleged Perpetrator.” Jerry Lauro, an investigator who specialized in abuse cases, was assigned to work the case with Schreffler.
Penn State detective Schreffler was interviewed by PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE reporter Paula Reed Ward about the case in December 2011. In Ward’s story Shreffler claimed that the “the state (Department of Public Welfare)” was the reason he closed the Penn State Police case on Sandusky in 1998:
.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.
But the Pennsylvania child welfare investigator assigned to the Sandusky case at the time, Jerry Lauro, told NBC News this week that Schreffler nor anyone at Penn State ever made him aware of the damning report by Dr. Chambers that profiled Sandusky as a “likely pedophile.”
(PSU Cop didn’t give “the state” PhD’s report on Sandusky)
When told of the contents of Dr. Chambers’ report on Sandusky in 1998 Lauro told NBC News:
“Wow! This is the first I’ve heard of this. I had no idea . If I would have seen the report, I would certainly have done some things differently. Boy, this is a shock.”
In an interview with NBC News the mother of the alleged Sandusky victim in 1998, identified as “Victim 6″ in the Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment that initially charged Sandusky with 40 counts of child sexual abuse against eight alleged victims, detailed her son’s reaction to Sandusky’s behavior:
On May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998, Penn State University police detective Ronald Schreffler eavesdropped on conversations Jerry Sandusky had with the mother of a boy later identified as “Victim 6″ in a 2011 grand jury presentment alleging 40 criminal counts of child sexual abuse against eight victims by the former Penn State football coach. (The alleged victim count has since increased to 10, with 52 criminal charges.)
The Nov. 4, 2011, grand jury presentment described Schreffler’s surveillance of Sandusky and the alleged victim’s mother in 1998:
Detective Schreffler testified .. The mother of Victim 6 confronted Sandusky about showering with her son, the effect it had on her son, whether Sandusky had sexual feelings when he hugged her naked son in the shower and where Victim 6’s buttocks were when Sandusky hugged him.
Sandusky said he had showered with other boys and Victim 6’s mother tried to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he would not.
She asked him if his “private parts” touched Victim 6 when he bearhugged him. Sandusky replied, “I don’t think so…maybe.”
At the conclusion of the second conversation, after Sandusky was told he could not see Victim 6 anymore, Sandusky said, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”
In a PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE report published on Dec. 18, 2011, Penn State detective Schreffler said of his investigation of Sandusky, “At the very minimum, there was enough evidence for some charges, like corruption of minors.”
Of his surveillance of Sandusky, Schreffler also told the Post-Gazette:
“I’ll never forget this. He (Sandusky) said ‘I would ask for your forgiveness, but I know you won’t give it to me. I wish I were dead. I understand I was wrong’
“Hearing him make that comment, I just felt there was more there. He was upbeat when he came in, and she started hammering him. I often wonder what he would have done if I’d stepped out from around the corner.”
” … I felt my hunch was right. There was something there.”
In the same December 2011 newspaper story, Post-Gazette reporter Paula Reed Ward wrote:
Mr. Schreffler and Jerry Lauro, a child abuse investigator from the state Department of Public Welfare, interviewed Mr. Sandusky on June 1, 1998. During that interview at the Lasch football building on Penn State’s campus, Mr. Schreffler said the man admitted to showering with boys.
.. Mr. Schreffler speculates that the district attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to press charges because the state Department of Public Welfare didn’t indicate a charge of abuse, which would have made the prosecution’s case even more difficult.
“It’d be a little hard for them to prosecute, when you have the state saying there wasn’t any abuse.”
The Pennsylvania “state Department of Public Welfare” investigator in the case in 1998 was Gerald Lauro.
Thursday the HARRISBURG PATRIOT-NEWS reported the following 2011 quote from Lauro in regards to why he dropped his inquiry of Sandusky in 1998:
Yesterday the Patriot-News also reported that two “hidden” reports from psychologists who interviewed the Sandusky accuser in 1998 were allegedly never made available to Lauro by Schreffler. From P-N reporter Sara Ganim:
Penn State “Detective [Ron] Schreffler never shared any of these with me,” Lauro said, referring to reports from psychologist John Seasock and a female psychologist.
Seasock concluded that the boy was not sexually abused two days before the case was closed. The report of the female psychologist who evaluated the boy right after the incident found Sandusky was exhibiting signs of grooming a victim for sexual abuse.
“The conclusions she had drawn in her report were pretty damaging,” Lauro said. “I would have made a different decision. … It’s unbelievable, and it gets my blood pressure going when I think about it.”
Schreffler, when reached by phone, declined comment. “My report speaks for itself,” he said before hanging up.
Clearly all of the statements made by Schreffler and Lauro cannot be true but whether those irreconcible differences indicate some manner of coverup remains to be seen.
At the very least, it’s impossible to think that the current Sandusky investigation teams will ignore such dramatically contradictory accounts of a 1998 Penn State-led investigation which in the end allowed Sandusky to allegedly sexual abuse children for more than an additional decade.
Not many are truly qualified to pass judgement on Joe Paterno’s actions following the the Nov. 4, 2011, arrest of former longtime Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky on dozens of charges related to child sexual abuse.
Let alone those who might try to accurately characterize Paterno’s reaction to Sandusky frequenting the Penn State locker room in the nine years after Paterno was first made aware of a child rape allegation against Sandusky in the shower of a PSU football facility.
But, with the bolded text below, SbB hopes to accurately ascribe the behavior of the late Penn State football coach in the aftermath of Paterno first learning of the Sandusky child rape allegation in a Penn State football locker room in 2002.
Paterno (11/6/2011): “As coach Sandusky was retired from our coaching staff at that time, I referred the matter to university administrators.”
Paterno (1/12/2012) “I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise that I did. I knew it was serious and I wanted to do something about it. And that’s why I went up the chain of command.”
I laugh at those who claim that we should have blind faith in our institutions.
A member of the Penn State Board of Trustees told the CENTRE (PA) DAILY TIMES Thursday that during an official briefing last May the Trustees were told by a Penn State lawyer that Jerry Sandusky had previously been the subject of four Grand Jury investigations.
Baldwin made the presentation to the Penn State Board of Trustees with then-Penn State President Graham Spanier, who was removed from his position by the board after the Sandusky Grand Jury presentment was released last November.
Tuesday Penn State announced that Baldwin, who has served as the University’s full-time general counsel and chief legal officer since early 2010, was stepping down. The “transition” was attributed to Baldwin having sufficiently staffed the school’s new in-house legal department.
The NEW YORK TIMES reported yesterday of the same May meeting in which Baldwin and Spanier briefed the Trustees about the Grand Jury investigation of Sandusky, with the newspaper noting that during the presentation, “No one (Trustee) asked questions.”
In the same New York Times story Wednesday, multiple Penn State Trustees reported that the board fired then-PSU President Graham Spanier after the Sandusky Grand Jury presentment was released last November because he failed to keep them properly informed of the Sandusky investigation.
Current Penn State Trustee Ira Lubert, who also helped lead the school’s recent search for a new football coach in the wake of Joe Paterno’s Trustee-led ouster, told the Times yesterday:
“He (Spanier) should have told us a lot more. He should have let us know much more of the background.”
The Patriot-News reported today that by the time the Board was officially informed of the Sandusky Grand Jury investigation by Baldwin and Spanier:
Several front-page stories in The Patriot-News and on PennLive.com had described two alleged sexual assaults of young boys by Sandusky being investigated by the grand jury – at least one of which was said to have taken place in the Penn State locker room while Sandusky was a Nittany Lions coach. All of the stories were also reported in the (State College-area) Centre Daily Times and the first one was fully rewritten and put on the national news wire by the AP.
Adam Smeltz of StateCollege.com also interviewed Penn State Board of Trustees members today, several of whom did not appear in the Wednesday New York Times story that detailed claims made by the leadership of the board regarding the May briefing by Baldwin and Spanier about the the Sandusky Grand Jury investigation.
In their interview with Smeltz today, the PSU Trustees who did not appear in Wednesday’s New York Times story disputed the claim made yesterday by the PSU Board of Trustees leadership to the newspaper that Spanier had deliberately misled them about the status of the Sandusky Grand Jury investigation.
After co-opting the WASHINGTON POST with his own personal crisis communications manager and high-priced criminal defense lawyer last weekend, somehow Joe Paterno still ended up in the RALEIGH NEWS & OBSERVER’s department of corrections on Sunday:
That’ll come as no surprise to Penn Staters, who haven’t been shy in decrying the injustices they claim have been perpetrated on their hero by the media in recent weeks.
Yes, we’re talking about the same Penn Staters incited to riot on worldwide television by their hero after Paterno provided the media a personal statement expressly designed to marginalize the same Penn State leadership he hid behind when called upon to stop a former longtime employee who had raped a child.