Feeding the Paterno Trolls

I'm breaking one of the most important laws of the Internet, but I can't resist. It's a topic I've touched on on more than one occasion, and one to revisit again today.

This morning the Paterno family released a report to counter the finding Louis Freeh made last year. In what came as a total shocker, the report pretty much absolved Joe Paterno of any and all responsibilities for the heinous crimes of Jerry Sandusky. It's entirely possible they also made some other wild claims, though those are disputed (note: this link is satire, and is not meant to be taken with any degree of seriousness).

While I admittedly did not read through the entirety of the Paternos' report, I did read most of the first 40 or so pages. Honestly, to completely dismiss this report as biased garbage would not be smart, as one could argue the Freeh report was much the same since it was commissioned by the Penn State Board of Trustees. The attorneys who contributed to this most recent report did have some good claims.

The main argument that seems to be used here is that Joe Paterno was duped into believing that Jerry Sandusky was actually a good man who cared about kids.

"The entire Penn State community, including Joe Paterno, was fooled by Jerry Sandusky. Joe Paterno missed the red flags of child molestation, and he never believed Sandusky was a child molester due to the proven behavioral and psychological dynamics and blind spots created by 'nice-guy' acquaintance child sex offenders. This case, if analyzed correctly through the lens of criminal and psychological research, can serve as a model for the public to learn how to identify and prevent child sexual victimization...

"Expert analysis, not surprisingly, shows that such a profile is not unique to Sandusky. It is common in many other case studies of prominent child molesters who hide in plain sight by cultivating and leveraging community trust to escape detection, even in the face of key signs that, in hindsight, indicated child abuse. That fact — the cognitive disconnect between what the community believes it knows about one of its well-regarded members and its inability to reconcile and accept what it later learns about signposts of child abuse — is a behavioral, medical, and psychological reality that repeatedly allows pedophiles to explain away complaints of inappropriate activity. Often, recognition of child molesters is even more difficult for those colleagues or friends who work or socialize most frequently with the child molester, as their own personal experiences and belief that they know the person well in some capacity allows them to accept alternative explanations in the absence of training on how to identify a sophisticated and manipulative child molester." -pages 9-10

To an extent, I can buy this explanation. Sandusky would have done everything in his power to paint himself as the character he did to keep his access to children. But that argument can only hold water for so long in the context of the situation.

These attorneys also attack the core of Freeh's evidence in the emails that were sent, in particular attacking their specificity. It's a good move as well; Freeh does make assumptions about the emails referring to Joe Paterno, though this is where the attorneys' case falls apart in my view.

This is the issue I can't get past. In 1998, Sandusky is investigated by the authorities for reported child sexual abuse. Ultimately nothing comes of it since the authorities supposedly don't have enough to go off of here. Emails are sent about about the incident saying "I have touched base with the coach" and "Coach is anxious to know where it stands." While these are most definitely vague and don't necessarily refer to Joe Paterno, to assume he didn't know about this incident is asinine. Sandusky was still on the football staff at this time. Paterno would surely have known his defensive coordinator was being investigated, either from other Penn State staff or from being contacted by the authorities. On the off chance he didn't know, the administration is not doing a good job keeping the inside of their house in order and we still have a lack of institutional control.

Fast forward to 2001 and the Mike McQueary incident. The attorneys claim that Paterno's elevation of McQueary's story to his bosses is enough, but they claim Paterno "promptly" told his superiors. While he claimed he didn't remember exactly when he told his superiors, Paterno explicitly said during his grand jury testimony, "I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends." This at best shows the misunderstanding the attorneys argue for with the "acquaintance child sex offender" point, but I think there's more to it than that.

Let's say the attorneys are correct with their following conclusion:

"(1) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyone not to discuss or to hide in any way the information reported by Mike McQueary; (2) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyone to limit the investigation of Mike McQueary’s report in any way, and (3) Joe Paterno never asked or told anyone, including Tim Curley, Gary Schultz and Graham Spanier, not to report Mike McQueary’s story as deemed appropriate."-page 26

The following fact still remains true, and this is ultimately what convinces me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Paterno, Curley, Schulz and Spanier (and even Mike McQueary) are all guilty. These men (other than McQueary with the possible exception of Paterno if you want to give this new report the benefit of the doubt) all knew about the 1998 incident. To hear about another incident in 2001 from a completely different source would lend credence to the first report, even if law enforcement dropped their investigation, and would have given not only Paterno, but all those men the responsibility to get police involved again. They didn't, and a pedophile was allowed to roam free for another decade.

The Paterno family has the right to point the finger elsewhere, as there are other responsible parties that still have to answer for what they did and what they failed to do. But they also need to look deep inside themselves and realize their dear patriarch, for all his "I didn’t come to work every day for sixty-one years. I was sick a couple days, and there were other things, like when David [Paterno’s son] got hurt. I don’t know if I’d say that’s completely honest," moments of integrity, this black spot still remains on his legacy. As John Kincade said before we really realized just how deep this went, we need to take everything about Joe Paterno with regards to his legacy: both the men he shaped and the young lives he allowed to be destroyed.