A Bulletpoint Look at the Players in PSU Scandal

Quite obviously, Jerry Sandusky is the most disturbing player in this Penn State University scandal and there are more allegations to come. 

Here is a bullet-pointed list of the other key players in the scandal and what they knew, didn’t know, or talked about in the grand jury testimony. Included is some opinion of my own on the subject.

Joe Paterno:
-One part of me is saying Joe Pa should go because he failed to do enough from a moral standpoint. He should have reassessed the situation after he saw that no real action of any substance had been taken to alleviate or investigate the claims made by others on Sandusky.
-The other part of me is saying, we don’t know all the facts and Paterno did nothing wrong criminally, should he be given the axe without at least a deeper investigation and more facts?
-I feel for JoePa – make no mistake I feel much, much worse about the kids who were abused by Sandusky – but I feel like the Board needed someone to put out some of the fires and the biggest chip they had was Joe Paterno.
-His ouster does pave the way for the revolution of the University to begin, and the healing process.
-But would Penn St have been just as well off keeping him around for the next few weeks while conducting more investigations into what he knew?
-If Curley was given Leave of Absence, why was Paterno spared that?
-What exactly did Paterno know? Will we ever know the full truth behind it now that he’s been fired?
-Paterno does not have to answer to the media or the masses now.
-How will Paterno’s legacy live on?
-Paterno’s health has been in question for years - will this send him to the edge?
-Why didn’t Joe Pa question Curley/Schultz/Spanier when he saw Sandusky was still given access to PSU buildings and there was no investigation beyond his original meeting with Curley/Schultz?
-Can Paterno take legal action against the BOT for pushing him out without any factual evidence of legal wrongdoing?
-Would Paterno go that route knowing that he may have dropped the ball from a moral standpoint?
-Mark Madden of 105.7 in Pittsburgh says Paterno knew more than he is letting on. Madden has been correct through every step.

Mike McQueary:
-From one perspective I see that McQueary should have also done more. A 28-year old man should have intervened when seeing Sandusky in the locker room abusing a child.
-The other side of me sees McQueary as a scared grad assistant who went through some of the proper channels to have this situation taken care of.
-McQueary dropped the ball by not going to the local or state police right away.
-2 ways to look at it from McQueary’s perspective:
-He did not go to the police because of fears he would do harm to the institution and wasn’t thinking rationally.
-He cowered because he was afraid to lose his job – Sandusky was an icon, would anyone believe him? Would he ruffle feathers within the University that would hinder his ability to work there?
-In the end, McQueary did the right thing by telling the administration - although he probably didn’t tell them enough.
-In the end, he also did the wrong thing by not reporting a crime instantly to the authorities beyond the University police (headed by Schultz)
-McQueary is just as culpable as Paterno for not doing enough from a moral standpoint. --Criminally, is he accountable because he saw a crime being committed within the walls of the university and did not report it beyond his administrators? He admitted to seeing it happen, is he part of the coverup?
-Why is McQueary coaching this weekend against Nebraska?

AD Tim Curley/VP Gary Schultz
-The two people I blame the most for this coverup.
-When presented with the information by McQueary through Paterno, they had a legal/moral obligation to investigate the claims more and did not.
-Schultz is the de facto head of police of the University, meaning he essentially covered up any wrong-doing.
-After hearing the information given from Paterno/McQueary, it took 1 ½ weeks to call McQueary in for a meeting. McQueary told Curley/Schultz that he believed he saw Sandusky sodomizing a boy.
-Curley/Schultz said they would look into the situation.
-A few more weeks passed before McQueary heard from Curley again. McQueary was told that Sandusky’s keys to the locker room had been taken away and the incident reported to Second Mile.
-University police never questioned McQueary – Schultz is the head of police at the University.
-Curley denies that McQueary ever reported anal sex of any kind to him during their initial meeting.
-Curley reported this to the Second Mile and all that was done to Sandusky was stripping him of his ability to bring youths on campus at PSU.
-Well before that time, the proper authorities should have been contacted and a formal police investigation should have been well underway.
-Curley says he told President Spanier and Spanier approved of his approach.
-Schultz testified that he had the impression from the story of McQueary that there might have been inappropriate sexual conduct taking place in the locker room shower with Sandusky and a boy.
-Schultz then testified that the allegations were “not that serious” or not thought to be at the time. He and Curley had no indication a crime had occurred, even though he admitted that he believed there had been sexual conduct between Sandusky and a boy.
-Either Schultz acted stupid or he is plain stupid – he clearly admits to knowing about a crime being committed and as VP and head of police (the person that McQueary and Paterno were absolutely correct to speak with) did nothing.
-Schultz never filed a police report and never questioned or contacted McQueary again. And he admitted that he and Curley never had a discussion about turning it over to local or state police.
-Schultz and Curley barred Sandusky from bringing children into the locker rooms and says he may have asked the child protection agency to look into the matter.
-Did this investigation ever take place?
-Schultz testified that he knew of a 1998 investigation into Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior – this was 2002.
-Schultz also testified that when Sandusky retired, Paterno wanted to take advantage of an enhanced retirement benefit under Sandusky’s state pension. What does this mean?
-Curley and McQueary both testified that Sandusky was never banned from any PSU building, even after Curley/Schultz said that he would be.
-Curley lied under oath, saying McQueary had never told him that he saw Sandusky engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior in the locker room shower.
-Curley and Schultz had a legal obligation to put this accusation through the proper channels and did not, then lied about it.

President Graham Spanier:
-Testified that Curley and Schultz came to him with a report of an incident that Sandusky and that he made a staff member “uncomfortable.”
-As late as April 2011, Spanier did not even know who the grad assistant (McQueary) was that informed Curley/Schultz of Sandusky’s sexual abuse.
-Spanier denies Curley/Schultz told him Sandusky’s inappropriate actions were sexual in nature. But admitted that they told him Sandusky was “horsing around in the shower” with a  younger child. Is legal action forthcoming because of this admission? Seems like a back-and-forth of his own statement.
-Spanier also denies knowing about the 1998 investigation (by U. police, no less) of Sandusky’s inappropriate behavior with boys.
-Spanier was responsible for Sandusky’s emeritus status.

PSU Board of Trustees:
-Was there enough factual information in the grand jury testimony to fire Joe Paterno at this time, without launching another investigation to find out how much the head coach really knew? Was Paterno questioned by the board on the matter prior to his ouster?
-There was clearly enough evidence in the grand jury testimony to fire Spanier because of this statement (-Spanier denies Curley/Schultz told him Sandusky’s inappropriate actions were sexual in nature. But admitted that they told him Sandusky was “horsing around in the shower” with a  younger child.)
-Can Paterno sue the BOT for pushing him out with no factual evidence of any legal wrongdoing on his part?
-How do we know the board of trustees were not involved in some way?

Also part of the story is Ray Gricar, the missing Center County District Attorney that failed to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 for his sexual abuse of children. Gricar went missing in 2005 and although his body was never found, was pronounced deceased in 2011.