RTB Twitter Bot
Member
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Jerry Sandusky, the monster who was convicted of molesting boys, is behind bars. No longer must the word "alleged" come before victims when describing those boys. Maybe Sandusky's guilty verdict can help the healing process for the victims.
Now it's time to understand who at Penn State enabled Sandusky to continue his horrific acts, and to what degrees. Now it's time to hold accountable the adults who could have done more.
All along we suspected a Penn State cover-up. Now we may have heard it through e-mails reported on by CNN last week.
The e-mails are damning to Penn State. They're potentially devastating to Joe Paterno's legacy, depending on how then-Penn State AD Tim Curley explains one particular e-mail.
Twelve years ago, Penn State leaders devised a plan to address Sandusky. It came two weeks after Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary first told Paterno in 2001 that McQueary believed he saw Sandusky make sexual contact with a boy in a locker room shower.
According to CNN, Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz wrote an e-mail to Curley on Feb. 26, 2001 about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject (Sandusky) asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" that Sandusky headed for troubled youths, and "contacting the Department of Welfare."
Then something changed. Curley purportedly wrote this one day later to Schultz and Penn State President Graham Spanier: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell them about the information we received and tell them we are aware of the first situation."
Did Paterno change Curley's mind, assuming Curley isn't lying about talking with Paterno? Was Paterno more involved in how to handle McQueary's accusations than what he portrayed publicly and in grand jury testimony prior to his death?
This e-mail raises those questions. It's hard to believe the e-mail means Curley overruled Paterno's wishes to turn in Sandusky. Paterno was God at Penn State, not the hand-picked AD who once played for him and now can shape Paterno's legacy.
More sickening in Curley's e-mail is the suggestion to tell Sandusky that Penn State leaders were "aware of the first situation." Presumably, this refers to a 1998 investigation of Sandusky by Penn State police for abusing a boy in the showers, a case that wasn't prosecuted.
Think about this. Penn State leaders were learning of a second allegation that Sandusky had abused a boy in their showers -- this time witnessed by one of their own coaches. Their reaction? Avoid authorities and continue granting Sandusky campus access, only with the unenforceable rule that children couldn't join him.
Who knows the motive for this warped thinking? Maybe it was to protect their jobs.
At the time, Paterno faced criticism from some Penn State fans who believed a 5-7 record in 2000 meant he was too old to continue coaching. News about Paterno's longtime ex-defensive coordinator raping boys in the locker room could have sunk Paterno and taken down Penn State administrators, too.
But Penn State officials knew what they were doing made them vulnerable. Spanier, once the chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, allegedly signed off on Curley's plan to only confront Sandusky.
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier wrote, according to CNN. "But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
The Paterno family wants the public to see all of the e-mails discovered in an ongoing independent investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freeh. The family claims Curley's e-mail doesn't provide the proper context to understand Paterno's actions.
Freeh's report is expected out soon.
At stake is how Paterno will be remembered.
At stake is holding adults accountable for enabling a monster.
Now it's time to understand who at Penn State enabled Sandusky to continue his horrific acts, and to what degrees. Now it's time to hold accountable the adults who could have done more.
All along we suspected a Penn State cover-up. Now we may have heard it through e-mails reported on by CNN last week.
The e-mails are damning to Penn State. They're potentially devastating to Joe Paterno's legacy, depending on how then-Penn State AD Tim Curley explains one particular e-mail.
Twelve years ago, Penn State leaders devised a plan to address Sandusky. It came two weeks after Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary first told Paterno in 2001 that McQueary believed he saw Sandusky make sexual contact with a boy in a locker room shower.
According to CNN, Penn State Vice President Gary Schultz wrote an e-mail to Curley on Feb. 26, 2001 about a three-part plan to "talk with the subject (Sandusky) asap regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility," ... "contacting the chair of the charitable organization" that Sandusky headed for troubled youths, and "contacting the Department of Welfare."
Then something changed. Curley purportedly wrote this one day later to Schultz and Penn State President Graham Spanier: "After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps. I am having trouble with going to everyone but the person involved. I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell them about the information we received and tell them we are aware of the first situation."
Did Paterno change Curley's mind, assuming Curley isn't lying about talking with Paterno? Was Paterno more involved in how to handle McQueary's accusations than what he portrayed publicly and in grand jury testimony prior to his death?
This e-mail raises those questions. It's hard to believe the e-mail means Curley overruled Paterno's wishes to turn in Sandusky. Paterno was God at Penn State, not the hand-picked AD who once played for him and now can shape Paterno's legacy.
More sickening in Curley's e-mail is the suggestion to tell Sandusky that Penn State leaders were "aware of the first situation." Presumably, this refers to a 1998 investigation of Sandusky by Penn State police for abusing a boy in the showers, a case that wasn't prosecuted.
Think about this. Penn State leaders were learning of a second allegation that Sandusky had abused a boy in their showers -- this time witnessed by one of their own coaches. Their reaction? Avoid authorities and continue granting Sandusky campus access, only with the unenforceable rule that children couldn't join him.
Who knows the motive for this warped thinking? Maybe it was to protect their jobs.
At the time, Paterno faced criticism from some Penn State fans who believed a 5-7 record in 2000 meant he was too old to continue coaching. News about Paterno's longtime ex-defensive coordinator raping boys in the locker room could have sunk Paterno and taken down Penn State administrators, too.
But Penn State officials knew what they were doing made them vulnerable. Spanier, once the chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors, allegedly signed off on Curley's plan to only confront Sandusky.
"The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and then we become vulnerable for not having reported it," Spanier wrote, according to CNN. "But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed."
The Paterno family wants the public to see all of the e-mails discovered in an ongoing independent investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freeh. The family claims Curley's e-mail doesn't provide the proper context to understand Paterno's actions.
Freeh's report is expected out soon.
At stake is how Paterno will be remembered.
At stake is holding adults accountable for enabling a monster.
