Thanks for the additional info. I had not yet seen the report and was going by news reports which did not give the facts that Craig relayed.

So yeah, it’s more serious that I knew.

However, I’m still not joining the anti-Paterno chorus. So far the FBI doesn’t think that he withheld information or was aware of the cover-up.

I don’t think that I have any information that they were not privy to and as I think that, in general, policing authorities (including the FBI) tend to err on the side of “blame first, prove later”, I’m not inclined to accuse when they are not accusing.

So far, it seems to me that he followed the right path… but someone else covered up, broke the law, facilitate child rape, and Paterno is getting blamed. I guess we’ll see as more comes out.

this may come across as nitpicking, but I’ll again state that I think it’s VERY important to choose words carefully.

You say that “McQueary saw Sandusky raping the child” but according to what I read (and I’m sure I’ve not read everything) that’s NOT what McQueary testified to the grand jury.

The grand jury report states that McQueary “heard rhythmic slapping sounds” and that when he looked in he saw someone “being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”

Declaring that “McQueary saw Sandusky raping the child” paints a different picture than what the grand jury reported McQueary to have testified.

Yes, statutory rape is rape (although there are cases of 18-years-and-a-few-days-old young men being tried for statutorily raping their few-days-short-of-18-year-old girlfriend, even though the girl insisted it wasn’t “rape”). But as many studies of witness reports of crimes reveal, what witnesses recognize in the heat of the moment aren’t always what they recall having happened (or: what they believe they saw happen) when they’ve left the scene and had a chance to review the experience. Unless McQueary can testify that the victim was resisting or asking Sandusky to stop, McQueary wouldn’t have recognized it as a violent rape at the time, and could not have testified to it as having been such. And unless McQueary realized that the victim was *obviously* under age at the moment he witnessed it, he also would not have been able to testify that what he witnessed was statutorily a rape.

Personally, I *assume* that “McQueary saw Sandusky raping the child” but I can’t honestly insist that he did, absent his having made such a declaration (preferably under oath), and I haven’t heard (or read of) him having made such a declaration.

And I’m not sure why, but a lot of folk seem to assume that

1) Paterno knew that Sandusky was molesting kids

2) that when McQueary told him that he saw a naked kid, that they both should have known that there was no other possible reason for a naked kid in a shower room

3) that when he told his employer that he should have somehow known that they covered it up

4) that Paterno should have gone to the police to tell them that he heard from someone that they saw something that made him suspect that something was amiss and that his employers are covering up.

Really?

Paterno isn’t – as best I know – a psychic and has no way of knowing the facts of a situation. But fortunately, there is an answer when you don’t know what it true: procedures.

Most institutions have a procedure for addressing possible criminal activity. Almost NEVER is the appropriate course of action to contact the police to tell them what you heard from someone else.

Paterno had no legal authority or moral obligation to determine the veracity of the witness (which, incidentally, was to nudity in a shower room, not to rape). And as the witness was uncertain as to exactly what he had seen, it would have been damaging and unfair to run with the story.

He did what he should have done, what he was expected to do, and what you should do if someone tells you that they witnessed something: report it to those whose job is to deal with it. That’s why there are procedures.

And, as Craig illustrated, even when there are multiple witnesses, it can be difficult to be absolutely sure what to do when you yourself didn’t see it.

Now we can argue that Paterno should have followed up. And, indeed, that’s reasonable. But I’m not sure what he could do once he was told, “Joe, we looked into it. The student assistant was mistaken. It was totally innocent.” Is he supposed to insist, “No, it isn’t innocent. Although McQuiry isn’t sure and even though I wasn’t there and don’t have any facts at all, I just magically know.”

I guess if we assume that Paterno should have suspected a cover-up, then of course he then was obligated to go over his bosses and talk to the police – maybe see if there was some way for them to do a quiet investigation.

But all of the fury at Paterno is based on the assumption that Paterno knew facts that he could not know and that he assumed that his employers were dishonest. So… show of hands now… how many of you are ready to run to the police to report your boss for a crime about which you have third hand knowledge at best.

Of course, if we find out the Paterno knew about the cover-up – or chose not to know too much so he didn’t have to respond – then he’s deserving of contempt. And, even if he knew nothing about the cover up, I’m still not sure he did all he could do.

But I can’t think of what else that a reasonable person would do.

So far the preponderance of what we know makes us believe that the allegations are true, but suppose that McQueary misinterpreted what he saw? The other allegations in the grand jury report, based on the reports of victims, speak of touching and one case of oral intercourse, but not forceful sodomy.

McQueary’s report is what has led to the depiction of Sandusky as a monster, but it seems anomalous from the reports of the victims themselves. (The alleged victim in the scene that McQueary observed has apparently not been identified by the Attorney General.)

I am not trying to excuse Sandusky, or to downplay the seriousness of the charges of inappropriate touching and oral intercourse, but the report of forcible sodomy in the shower is what elevates the charges into a different dimension.

In any case, Paterno has a lot to answer for. He hired and protected Rene Portland for over twenty years as she routinely discriminated against lesbians and conducted a reign of terror over her Lady Lions basketball team.

Plus, my memory is pretty good.

Here’s the URL:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/11/17/16791

Jim Burroway
November 17th, 2009

How about this?

A preliminary report commissioned by the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops to investigate the clergy sex abuse scandal has found no evidence that gay priests are more likely than heterosexual clergy to molest children, the lead authors of the study said Tuesday.

The full report by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice won’t be completed until the end of next year. But the authors said their evidence to date found no data indicating that homosexuality was a predictor of abuse.

“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” said Margaret Smith of John Jay College, in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now.”

It looks like the report’s authors are coming to the same conclusions I did when I tackled the question in our report, “Testing the Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?”I poured through the professional literature and found no connection between homosexuality and child molestation. The Catholic Bishops commissioned a $2 million study in response to the clerical sexual abuse scandals which came to the same conclusion. Here’s the money quote:

At the meeting Tuesday, Bishop Edward Braxton of the Diocese of Belleville, Ill., asked the researchers whether their study indicated that homosexuality should be considered when evaluating a candidate for the priesthood. In 2005, the Vatican issued a policy statement that men with “deep-seated” attraction to other men should be barred from the priesthood.

Smith said: “If that exclusion were based on the fact that that person would be more probable than any other candidate to abuse, we do not find that at this time.”

Last year, Pope Benedict XVI drew a distinction between homosexuality and pedophelia, saying “I would not speak at this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia which is another thing. And we would absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry.” Yet the Vatican’s instructions barring gay men from entering holy orders unless they had “overcome” for at least three years still stands.

…the Holy See stated that the majority of Catholic clergy who had committed acts of sexual abuse against under 18 year olds should not be viewed as paedophiles, but as homosexuals who are attracted to sex with adolescent males.

Convenient that such a view fits the anti-gay narrative of the RCC by presenting yet another opportunity to heap opprobrium on gay people and “the homosexual”.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,002.htm