Keidel: Syracuse No Excuse For Penn State

By Jason Keidel
» More Columns

I’m hardly a hero. But when I began writing for WFAN, I became the rare writer who provided his personal email address under his columns. As a native New Yorker, born to battle and imbued with the native, demonic, debating gene, I wanted your opinion and refused to hide behind a handle or corporate shield.

And I promised our readers that I’d respond to every comment on my columns, even (if not especially) those who vehemently disagree, provided no profanity or similarly offensive language was used.

But this Penn State stuff has tested my mettle, my willingness to engage and my belief in our species.

And I’m a bit more than baffled and irked by the boiling invectives bulging from my inbox. Most are sanctimonious, State College sympathizers who not only still defend the way Sandusky was handled, but are still loud, proud, Paterno apologists.

When it comes to this case, I’m forced to delete 90 percent of the responses because they are vicious, vulgar, and redundant. I should just list those people here, because the same people send the same emails. And not one of them expresses anger at Sandusky, sympathy for the children he destroyed, or outrage at the apparatus that let all this happen. If you can’t disagree with some degree of decency, please don’t speak.

“Why don’t you go after Syracuse?” is one of the more civil, but rather silly, retorts to my rather controversial column on the disgraced former football coach of the Nittany Lions.

There are a hundred reasons not to attack Syracuse right now. Here are a few:

1. We don’t know enough about the case.

2. There has been no arrest, indictment, or grand jury report regarding Bernie Fine, Jim Boeheim, or the school. How am I supposed to know how to blast Bernie Fine when I don’t know what he did?

3. It seems everyone involved has changed their story at least once over the last decade, including the alleged victims. That’s not to say they weren’t abused or that Fine didn’t abuse them, but we need a more lineal, logical account of the case before I’m comfortable commenting.

4. The owner and maker of the smoking gun, Fine’s wife, was reportedly sleeping with one of the alleged victims. Then, years after the infamous phone conversation was recorded, she said the tape was doctored.

5. With so many conflicting concessions and confessions, we don’t know who’s telling the truth. And if John Doe can’t corroborate his own story, how can I?

6. Where’s the cover-up? ESPN and the Syracuse Post-Standard secured this story nearly ten years ago, and did nothing with it. One would hope they didn’t hold and hide the story out of vanity, the need to keep their “exclusive” and hence protecting a potentially volcanic matter while allowing an alleged pedophile (Fine) to molest more kids for another decade.

The one feeling I have, which runs across the grain, it seems, is that Boeheim has to go. Not only because he slammed the alleged victims as money-grabbing prevaricators – which is enough to can him – but if we assume that Paterno knew about Sandusky for decades (and I do think Paterno knew about Sandusky, in some form, since the 1980s) then the same standard must apply to Boeheim. When you know a man, work closely with a man, for 36 years, become a de facto family member by dint of the intimacy and proximity of coaching, chances are you know he has an inappropriate interest in children. I’m not saying send Jim to jail, but his coaching career should end.

But from State College and beyond, we see a series of defense mechanisms. Deflection and relativism seem the main modes of attack, as if Syracuse excuses Paterno, his missives or minions in this systemic subterfuge while a serial child rapist roamed that campus with impunity.

Distilled, the aggregate argument from the fans flooding my email is as follows: Paterno didn’t know about Sandusky in 1994 (the first year of the grand jury’s timeline) because Jason’s a hack. Paterno didn’t know about Sandusky in 1998 because Jason’s a hack. Paterno finally figured it out in 2002 and did precisely the right thing by not calling the cops because… you guessed it… Jason’s a hack.

The worst part is the bulk of Paterno’s apologists don’t even know the man. You owe him nothing and, trust me, he doesn’t feel he owes you anything.  And I’m sure you are, like I am, waiting for all the “truth” Paterno promised to share with us since the scandal became public. Instead, Paterno is muted and lawyered-up, bracing for the tidal wave of civil suits headed his way. Success With Honor, indeed.

I feel smarter by the second standing next to Paterno’s apologists.

And why is Tom Bradley still there? “Well, shucks, ole Tom didn’t do nuthin’,” you declare. Really? How do you know that? I don’t know that. I do know that he’s been there since 1979. Would it be absurd to speculate that he may of seen something and not said something? Even if we suspend all belief, give Bradley every benefit of the doubt (a benefit not given those destroyed children), he’s now the face of the old regime, the crooked autocracy that let Sandusky do what he did. Bye, Bradley.

Now we have Dottie Sandusky, the doting, demented wife releasing statements clearing her husband of all malfeasance. She says everyone from the boys Jerry Sandusky raped (allegedly, of course) to Mike McQueary to the grand jury are telling tall tales.

“What do you expected from Sandusky’s own wife?” you shriek.

I expect her to shut up. Most marriages (including my own) have melted under far less barbaric pretenses. Usually, husband and wife just get sick of each other, or one party cheats, or both. But that’s just the way it goes. I don’t have any pals who get divorced because he decided to become an alleged pathological liar and serial child rapist.

One of the (alleged, of course) victims said Jerry Sandusky kept him in the basement of Sandusky’s house while devoted Dottie was upstairs folding laundry, baking cookies, and keeping house. If that’s true, toss Dottie into the Sandusky cell and let both rot in Hell.

Here’s what I’m saying. We all agree that Sandusky is a monster. And while even monsters deserve a day in court, there’s no way 50 counts of sexual assault on kids (with far more to come) can be concocted.

What we don’t seem to agree on, yet we should, is that Sandusky doesn’t exist for over 30 years without a little help from his friends, from his charity to his employer to the police. Why is that so hard to understand?

The Wall Street Journal reported that Paterno’s tentacles ran so deep into his program that he squabbled weekly with the Penn State’s public relations people over which player transgressions he wanted them to release. Paterno knew if his players got drunk or stoned, if they were speeding or cheating on a midterm. But he didn’t know his top lieutenant molested boys. This is what you’re asking me to believe.

We also know that Syracuse doesn’t make Penn State go away. Nope. In fact, Penn State gets worse, much worse, before it gets better.

Feel free to email me, if you promise to remain sane:

Keidel takes a hard line — but what’s your opinion on the scandals plaguing Penn State and Syracuse? Join the conversation below…


One Comment

  1. Sully says:

    I said this before and I’ll say it again…
    Those of you defending Joe Paterno need to address the following equation:

    10 Year Old Naked Boy + 55 Year Old Naked Man x Checkered Past + Shower = Call the police

    If you agree then why didn’t Paterno call the police
    If you do NOT agree then explain your position

    1. WHERE IS THE LOGIC says:

      I don’t agree. It’s certainly inappropriate, creepy and wrong but its not a crime. If it is I hope my middle school football coaches get lawyered up cause I’m still scarred from seeing their fat asses in the shower after summer practice and they will pay dearly when my lawyer is done with them.
      75 year old iconic powerful controlling king of the university coach + 57 year old pedophile + coverup + hey just keep doing what you’re doing on my campus and in my locker room = Absurd assertion

      75 year old iconic powerful controlling king of the university coach + 57 year old pedophile + coverup + get out of state college now and never ever come near my program again = plausible

      75 year old iconic powerful controlling king of the university coach + 57 year old well known and presumably vetted child well fare advocate + in the shower with a kid + I can’t even fathom this guy is a pedophile (which is what everyone but the alleged victims say) but I’ll call Curley anyway cause McQuery seemed upset = logical

      p.s. none of this means Sandusky is innocent, my points are about the fact that the mob mentality that took over after a one sided inflammatory grand jury presentment was made without cross examination, without a full transcript, without 3 or 4 versions from McQueary, without any recognition of the illogical premise that people let a child rapist run lose to protect a football program but do nothing else is the point.

      6ft 4 250lb 27 yr old man + child being raped + didn’t scream + didn’t forceably attack + called Dad and Dads friend + didn’t call the police + associated with the child rapist for 10 years = absurd assertion
      6ft 4 250lb 27 yr old man + ex coach in the shower with a kid and some goofy noises + tell dad and dad’s friend + tell boss (the next day) + tell bosses boss (10 days later) + nothing else happened + go to ex coaches golf tournament for his kids charity = logical
      6ft 4 250lb 27 yr old man + ex coach in the shower with a kid and some goofy noises + tell dad and dad’s friend + tell boss (the next day) + tell bosses boss (10 days later) + associated with the child rapist for 10 years + then tell grand jury he saw a child being raped and ran out + then emails that he did stop it and did call the police + told dads friend he didn’t see anything but a kid peer around a corner = really really screwed up dude.

      1. Sully says:

        You are removing “With a checkered past” in your response.

        I wrote that into the equation.

        Sandusky’s past was checkered at best.

      2. Sully says:

        “75 year old iconic powerful controlling king of the university coach + 57 year old pedophile + coverup + get out of state college now and never ever come near my program again = plausible”

        And a COVER UP!

        And NOT what happened as Sandusky had access to Penn State facilities for the next 9 years.

        Try again

      3. Sully says:

        “6ft 4 250lb 27 yr old man + ex coach in the shower with a kid and some goofy noises + tell dad and dad’s friend + tell boss (the next day) + tell bosses boss (10 days later) + nothing else happened + go to ex coaches golf tournament for his kids charity = logical”

        He heard rthymic (sp?) slapping and anal rape.
        That isn’t “some goofy noises.”

        Try again

  2. JK says:

    You believe Paterno? That’s all we need to know. Perhaps you’re as sick as he is. If you think Paterno did the right thing regarding Sandusky, the you are so detached from reality that, frankly, you can’t be reached.

    Answer a few simple questions, provided you’re capable of objectivity:

    1) Where’s all the “truth” Paterno promised us when the scandal became public?
    2) Why is he hiding behind lawyers?
    3) Why was he fired?
    4) Why did he say he wished he’d done more?
    5) Why was Sandusky allowed on campus – with children – years after McQueary told Paterno about the shower incident in 2002?
    6) Why was Sandusky fired, released, retired (choose your method of termination) in 1999 if Paterno knew nothing? After all, Sandusky, 55 at the time, was Paterno’s presumed successor, and had just won Assistant Coach of the Year.
    7) How could Paterno NOT have known about the school’s investigation into Sandusky in 1998 (conducted with Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare)? Was it just a coincidence that he magically retired the next year, in his coaching prime?

    You’ll ignore all of those (rather reasonable) questions, of course, because calling me a hack is so much easier and far better suited for simpletons like yourself. As far as defamation is concerned, no doubt you’ll lead the lawsuits my way. Anytime. Anytime.

    I’ve been writing for WFAN/CBS for nearly two years. I’ve never been told what to write or what not to write, and I’ve gotten more far more hits on far less controversial topics. So now everything you’ve said is comically inaccurate and inane. Not that you know the difference.

    And, of course, it’s you who hides behind handles, sniping from the comfort of your cubicle, assuming you have a job.

  3. It's for the children , who do you think you're fooling says:

    Actually you being a hack has nothing to do with the debate or comments, its just a statement of fact. You are the only one that thinks its relevant to the discussion. You are a blogger with precious few if any journalistic skills. What’s more disgusting is that you make money from this garbage, and especially when you act like you’ve written these articles “for the children” BS. This little article was a weak attempt to capture the magic of that whopping 240 comment article that legally defamed Joe Paterno. Even though most of the comments were you and some joker playing games with your head. Your sanctimonious suggestion that your articles should somehow be the forum for saying I hate pedophilia and jerry Sandusky more than you is laughable.
    This is America and if I believe Joe Paterno when he says he knew nothing prior to the 2002 incident and I believe that he covered nothing up that’s my right and your bullying tactic to say I don’t express anything about the kids or anger at Sandusky speaks volumes about your character. The same character that allowed you to put the following in the next lousy article you wrote: (Feel free to join the tornadic debate under my Monday column, with comments 200-deep upon last look.) That is no character. Tornadic debate, 200 deep speaks volumes about how much you grieve for the victims. Peace out.

    1. JK says:

      You’re right. I apologize.

      You’ve shown us real character while hiding behind pseudonyms, blasting people for having the guts to do something you’ll never do – state an opinion, with skill, in public, for the world to read, regard, and respond.

      Or perhaps you’ve done that. Where’s your column, again? You probably told us and we forgot.

    2. Sully says:

      “This is America and if I believe Joe Paterno when he says he knew nothing prior to the 2002 incident ”

      Thank you for pointing out that this is America.

      Even if we grant you that Joe Paterno is the LEAST inquisitive person on the planet Earth and never asked about any of the allegations against Sandusky before 2002… Let’s take that as a starting point.

      Then by what YOU are saying he knew that there was at the very least good reason to believe that Sandusky was capable of raping a child.

      And with that knowledge Joe Paterno neither called the police nor removed himself from the board of an organization that put Sandusky in constant contact with children. And this remained the case for the NEXT 9 YEARS.

      I just want to make 100% clear that we both agree that that is your stance.

      And you don’t have a problem with that?

      1. I am a complete failure because I have written a blog article for a local TV/radio station My says:

        Sully, Sully ,Sully, can you read, I said he knew that Sandusky was in a shower with a kid, period. Joe Paterno is a very intelligent well read, well regarded man of integrity, he is also a control freak. Please provide the rational for why such a man would know about and believe a child rape occurred, cover it up and then exercise none of his considerable power to prevent the child rapist from creating more problems he would need to cover up again and again, that makes sense to you? There is no logic on the planet to explain that.
        p.s. shower with a kid is creepy, inappropriate and wrong but there is no criminal statute associated with it.
        p.s.s Least inquisitive person on earth, what the hell do you mean. He would have no reason to ask about 1998 if he had no knowledge of it .

        1. Sully says:

          First of all it is not up to me to provide a reason for why he didn’t.
          I am simply concerned that he didn’t contact the police.

          10 Year Old Naked Boy + 55 Year Old Naked Man x Checkered Past + Shower = Call the police

          I am sorry that you have trouble understanding that concept.

          And of course we can speculate why everything was kept in house.
          They had a reputation to protect. Penn State. Happy Valley. Things are good and pure there.

          As associating Penn State with Child Rape could cost Penn State tens of millions a year.

          No different than the Catholic Church doing everything in house.

          As for 1998… the least inquisitive comment comes from his great assistant that everyone calls the remarkable football mind suddenly retires in 1999. And in a wild coincidence that happens to be after the first victim came forward.

          You are telling me control freak Paterno NEVER asked “Hey, why is he retiring? And why was he talking to police?”

          You are actually saying he abruptly left (and never took another college coaching job that could have given him millions of dollars and exposure for his foundation) and Joe Pa never once between 1999 and 2002 asked “Why did you up and retire?”

          Then you agree with me that Joe Pa must be the least inquisitive person on Earth

          1. WHERE IS THE LOGIC says:

            You assume he retired because of the accusation but you have no idea why he retired. Did Bill Cowher and Tony Dungy get investigated for child abuse?
            Joe Paterno would have known exactly why he retired, that’s my point. He knew nothing about Sandusky’s proclivity the same way Boeheim had no idea about fine.

            1. Sully says:

              Bill Cowher and Tony Dungy reached the peak of their professions.

              Sandusky was an assistant and would have been a coveted head coach.
              Your analogy is faulty.

              And seeing there was a time line between Sandusky being investigated for child rape in 1998 and his sudden retirement in 1999, it is not outlandish to think that Paterno would have asked “Hey. What’s up with this retirement?”

        2. Sully says:

          As for me being a complete failure…
          If you got to know me, I’m happy to see your argument resorting to personal attacks.

          I stand by my resume, my credentials, my Emmy nominations, my national credits and my not apologizing for enablers of child rape.

          Now my wife thinks I am a complete failure, but that has more to do with biology than anything else.

          1. WHERE IS THE LOGIC says:

            That was supposed to be self referencing and say I am a complete failure because I have NOT written a local tv blog in response to Jason asking for where my “article” was.
            Conrats on your emmy, I am anonymous because this is the internet and I am not getting paid like the “author” is, your choice to not be anonymous.
            I don’t apologize for enablers of child rape. If facts prove that Joe Paterno knowingly let a child rapist run free I’ll jump on your bandwagon in a nano second, but I do not believe based on a lifetime of integrity, not football wins but integrity that he did.

            1. Sully says:

              So let’s review facts

              DID Joe Paterno say in a sworn testimony that he was told that Sandusky was involved in sexual activity in a shower with a 10 year old boy?

              Not just taking a shower, which is reason enough to call a cop when the person has a checkered past, but actually doing something sexual to a boy.

              The answer is yes.

              DID Joe Paterno call the police? The answer is no.

              DID Joe Paterno stay on the board, albeit in a ceremonial position, of Sandusky’s foundation from 2002 to 2011 with the knowledge of what Sandusky was doing in the shower with the boy?

              The answer is yes.

              All of that totally negates his lifetime of integrity in my opinion.

              I’m sorry. You call the cops when kids are raped.
              I don’t give a damn about his graduation rate.

              Kid being raped = Call the cops

              We know that he didn’t call the cops for at least 9 years.
              If one child was raped between 2002 and 2011, then Paterno is partially responsible.

              Not a hard concept

  4. JK says:

    By the way, Alex, McQueary hasn’t changed his testimony. You’ll notice accusing the accusers is now the main mode of attack. McQueary is suddenly wrong, not Sandusky or Paterno.

    All these reports that McQueary changed his story is nonsense. And he told Dranov that he heard “sex sounds” from the shower. And, no matter what he told a doctor, his official account, under oath, is with the grand jury, not a physician. AND ALL THE ACCOUNTS HAVE SANDUSKY NAKED IN A SHOWER WITH A CHILD.

    Paterno apologists want these tangents. They don’t want us to focus on facts, on Sandusky, Paterno, etc. They would rather call McQueary a liar and Jason a hack. So much more convenient. This loyalty without cause is so sickening. Just sickening.

    1. Alex P. says:

      Exactly. I’m on the same page. They accuse you of jumping to conclusions without evidence. Yet, somehow they convince themselves that a grand jury’s findings are false. That takes a tremendous amount of self-deception. Anyone would be outraged if their son or daughter were abused at the local middle school and the school dealt with it by merely taking away the teacher’s locker room key. But this is exactly what happened at Penn State, and not only is there no outrage, but a defense of it.

      1. JK says:

        Indeed, Alex, and at least I have a 50-count grand jury indictment to back me, several eyewitnesses and twelve accusers. What do they have? Jason’s a hack. McQueary’s a liar. Alex P. is a moron. Those are their legal grounds for dismissal.

        I wonder if they tried those arguments in front of the DA handling the case. Heck, they don’t even have the guts to call Francesa and make these arguments because America would actually hear them make these deranged declarations.

        Which side would you rather be on? Where do you think these Paterno apologists will be a year from now, when we know the exact depth of the crimes, corruption, and systemic concealment of these horrors? They will vanish, of course, which is why they won’t use their real names and locations. Since they came from nowhere, it’s far easier to hide from us and the truth.


          I know where I will be, I’ll be fully disclosing my name, address, phone number and whatever else you’d like to know, how about you agree right here in writing that if your assertions are proven to be wrong you will issue an apology and resign, assuming you still have this job. Deal?

          1. JK says:

            I guess you’re tired of getting your a$$ handed to you by Sully, so you figured you’d give me another shot.

          2. JK says:

            Ladies & Gentlemen, here is the archetype and apotheosis of the Paterno Apologist…

            He states that this is America, where he’s free to believe in Paterno’s innocence. Yet when we, fellow Americans, dare question Paterno’s part in this scandal, we must quit our jobs. In his America, we are free only when we agree with the Penn State sycophant.

            In six months, when we know the precise dimensions of Sandusky’s molestation and the depth of Paterno’s misdeeds, you’ll be so far underground that archeologists won’t find your excuses for eons.

            1. Sully says:

              Crickets… Crickets

  5. JK says:

    “Paterno is tangential.” He actually said that? Paterno isn’t tangential to anything that occured to members of Penn State’s football program for the last four decades.

    By the way, the grand jury’s timeline dates back to 1994, eight years before McQueary’s account. And there are MULTIPLE eyewitnesses, not just McQueary. And there are now TWELVE accusers. No doubt all of them are lying.

    As I said in the column and continue to say, you’ll not the thematic stitch through Paterno apologists – no anger at Sandusky, no sympathy for the children he (allegedly, of course) raped, and no outrage at the apparatus that allowed it to happen. And all of them hide behind handles, never revealing real names or locations.

    And, of course, 50 counts of sexual assault and such are all false because…all together now….Jason’s a hack! How do you people live with yourselves?

  6. Beause Jason's a HACK!!!!!! says:

    The sources said the deputy state prosecutor handling the case said that Paterno did the right thing, and handled himself appropriately in 2002 and during the three-year investigation that ended Friday.

    Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general’s office, noted that the two officials charged with perjury and failure to report the abuse are being defended by the university, while Paterno was fired.
    We have a cooperating witness [Paterno], an individual who testified, provided truthful testimony,” Hagen-Frederiksen told,

    Aside from what is in the Grand Jury presentment, you and everyone else have NO idea what Joe paterno did or didn’t do. You can speculate and you can opine but you DO NOT KNOW.

    This story if the allegations are true is about the victims of an incredibly deceptive monster who used a charity and the good works of hundreds if not thousands of people who wanted to help children to harm children. Joe Paterno and Penn State are quite frankly tangential to the apparent underlying tragedy.

    Legal experts say presentments have fallen out of favor in most states and the federal system because they are often viewed as prejudicial and inflammatory both to those charged with crimes, such as Mr. Sandusky, and those who aren’t, such as Mike McQueary, a Penn State assistant coach who told the grand jury he witnessed an incident in a shower involving Mr. Sandusky and a young boy.

    “They’re one-sided and unfair, and in some instances can be inquisitorial,” said Bennett Gershman, a law professor at Pace University and a former prosecutor.

    “Grand jury reports can be effective if they’re used properly,” says Gerald Lefcourt, a criminal-defense lawyer in New York. But Mr. Lefcourt said they can be mishandled. “The notion that the AG’s office would write a report that’s primarily critical of individuals is pretty outrageous given our present-day notion of due process and fairness,” he said.

    However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.
    Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police.

    1. Alex P. says:

      I gotta say this Dranov development doesn’t make a lot of sense. He’s claiming that McQueary said he only saw a boy’s head peak around a corner. However for weeks now everyone has been rebuking McQueary for walking away when he saw a boy being raped. Don’t you think if it was only a “peak around the corner” that he saw, he would have come out and defended himself to the media and said that he only saw a boy looking around a corner. But he didn’t do this because its not true. I believe he’s telling the truth in his grand jury testimony that he saw Sandusky attacking this kid.

      1. COMMON SENSE says:

        Hard to say which is part of the point relative to all the HACK bloggers and talking heads who spewed as fact things that they did not and could not know. Just like Keidel saying Boheim had to know about Fine, that’s ludicrous.
        Its more logical that What Mcqueary told his father and Dranov minutes after the event is what occurred. The idea that men of education and integrity with no one having ever questioned their credibility or honesty is the past like Paterno, Spanier, Curly and Shultz would hear of a child rape and not take extreme measures is just not believable. Why to protect $75 million dollars inside a $4 billion budget. To cover up but not force Sandusky out of town, unbelievable. To donate to his charity and participate in his events knowing he raped children, unbelievable. If one child was harmed its an abomination and tragic but to assume that all people involved would willing let something like Sandusky continue to roam around and hurt people makes absolutely NO sense NONE whatsoever. Same for Boeheim, if he had even an inkling about Fine he would at a minimum run him out of town. People child abuse is horrible and emotional but STOP the witch hunts

        1. Alex P. says:

          You are doing exactly the same thing that you are accusing Jason Keidel of doing. You are speculating about the veracity of something that McQueary allegedly said immediately following the incident, and without any definitive proof you are arguing that Dranov’s account is true. It is a fact, however, that McQueary testified under oath that he heard slapping noises and saw a boy being sodomized. So now you are claiming that McQueary committed perjury and that the grand jury’s finding of perjury with respect to Curly and Shultz is incorrect. It looks like you already know the facts of this case so let’s skip right to the sentencing phase.

        2. Sully says:

          “to assume that all people involved would willing let something like Sandusky continue to roam around and hurt people makes absolutely NO sense NONE whatsoever. ”

          Yes. It makes no sense at all for an institution to prevent a scandal that could cost them tens of millions a year from becoming public.

          Which is why Paterno and everyone involved went to the police and made sure that they got to the bottom of this.

          Oh wait… the exact opposite happens.

          I guess someone has never heard of The Roman Catholic Church

    2. Sully says:

      “you and everyone else have NO idea what Joe paterno did or didn’t do”

      Well we DO know he didn’t call the police.

      I don’t know about you, but if a boy was raped I’d call the cops.

    3. Lisa says:

      Ahem. If you want to talk about people being hacks, you might want to write things in YOUR OWN WORDS, instead of STEALING THEM FROM OTHER PEOPLE! You’ve stolen from the Wall Street Journal and and posted this information as if you wrote it. No link, no credits. You are a plagiarist.

  7. JK says:

    You’ll also note that it wasn’t Penn State that blew the whistle at Sandusky, but rather a local high school. So this notion that anyone could defend Penn State on any level is just disgusting.

  8. JK says:

    It’s far more helpful to this dialogue to express your view than to cut-and-paste. If you’re saying Sandusky is innocent and that Paterno did nothing wrong, we really reside in different universes.

    Again, you’ll notice the thread among Penn State sycophants – no anger at Sandusky, no sympathy for the children, and no outrage over the apparatus that concealed it. And, of course, the rampant, cowardly hiding behind handles.

    The charges against Sandusky date back to 1994, long before McQueary’s testimony. But facts don’t matter to Paterno’s apologists.

    And, again, no kids were molested because Jason’s a hack. Lovely logic. Enjoy your dinner with Dottie…

  9. It's called journalism not hack blogging says:

    Another version of Mike McQueary’s story about Jerry Sandusky surfaces
    Published: Sunday, December 11, 2011, 12:29 AM     Updated: Sunday, December 11, 2011, 12:49 AM
    By SARA GANIM, The Patriot-News


    STATE COLLEGE — Minutes after Mike McQueary says he stumbled upon something between Jerry Sandusky and a boy in a Penn State shower in 2002, he went to his father’s State College home seeking advice.
    There, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend and colleague of McQueary’s father, sat with the then 28-year-old graduate assistant and listened to his very first account of what he had seen, a source told The Patriot-News.

    View full sizeThe Patriot-News/file
    Penn State assistant football coach and Jerry Sandusky case witness Mike McQueary has hired a law firm that specializes in employment issues. He is on paid leave from the university.
    According to the source with knowledge of Dranov’s testimony before the grand jury, it went like this:
    McQueary heard “sex sounds” and the shower running, and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view.
    Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel.
    That account is different from the hand-written statement obtained by The Patriot-News that McQueary provided for investigators when he was interviewed in 2010.
    It’s also different than the summary of his grand jury testimony in the 23-page initial grand jury presentment.
    In both of those accounts, McQueary says he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy as he stood with his hands against a shower wall.
    McQueary says the pair turned and looked at him before he left.
    However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.
    Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police.
    The next day Paterno and McQueary talked, and Paterno’s response to the conversation was widely scrutinized when the grand jury presentment was made public in November.
    Paterno said graphic detail, such as rape, was never mentioned to him. But public outcry led to his firing five days after Sandusky was charged.
    But more importantly than public opinion, Mike McQueary’s story is a key element to all the criminal cases involved in the Sandusky scandal.
    His witness testimony was the only evidence of an assault in 2002 presented to grand jurors, and his detailed account is the reason that perjury charges were filed against two ousted Penn State officials. Both said they were told only about horseplay that made McQueary uncomfortable, while McQueary testified he told them explicit details about a rape.
    Repeated attempts to reach McQueary over the past month for comment have been unsuccessful. McQueary was placed on leave after receiving death threats as a result of his testimony about allegations against Jerry Sandusky from people who believe he did not do enough to stop the alleged assault.
    Friday, former Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz will face a preliminary hearing on charges of perjury and failure to report a crime.
    The case against them is dependent on the premise that McQueary’s testimony is more credible than theirs. Saturday, attorneys for Curley and Schultz issued this statement in response to Dranov’s testimony:
    “We have not seen the grand jury transcript, so it would be imprudent to comment on its content. But, if this information is true, and we believe it is, it would be powerful, exculpatory evidence, and the charges against our clients should be dismissed.”

  10. JK says:

    Sean, take off your Syracuse Snuggie and face some facts.

    And, for the record – since you clearly didn’t read the column – I’d fire Boeheim for blasting the victims. Or are you pretending he didn’t do that? Or do you acknowledge that Boeheim did it and still have no problem with it?

    Or maybe you think our reflexive response to child molestation accusations should be to blast them for having the courage to come forward.

  11. Sean says:

    You keep saying you’re not comfortable judging the Syracuse case because there is not enough evidence and too many questions… yet you feel perfectly comfortable firing someone of 36 years on a hunch? Give me a break.

    1. Robert Richardson says:



    2. Sully says:

      Eye witness to event and sworn grand jury testimony = hunch?

  12. Kurt Spitzner says:

    Its all about accountability and most importantly the children so when people in authority abuse said authority all those involved need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!there are some laws that need stiffer sentences but this is not the time or the place.

  13. Alex P. says:

    The rioting fans at Penn State who responded to Paterno’s ouster by taking to the streets somewhat reminded me of the throngs of people celebrating the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, though I believe the Penn State fans’ response was much more egregious. The Penn State riot was such a shameless display of moral obtuseness in the face of overwhelming criminality and brutality. Now, I do want to acknowledge that there is a substantial history of racial inequity underlying the O.J. acquittal response, so the response is comprehensible in that context. But what exactly is underlying the Penn State fan’s response? Do they really want to protect and preserve a system that by all accounts operated with a despotic obsession with secrecy and centralized power wielded by none other than their beloved Joe Paterno? Where is the shame?

    I understand this is a quite overused analogy, yet nevertheless one that I believe is apt here: in 1945, German citizens were taken on a tour through the concentration camps and forced to look at the discarded bodies of Jewish citizens. I hope Sandusky’s trial offers us the same opportunity, that is to bare brutality and let suffering speak. If Penn State fan’s still want to sing Paterno’s praises after that, then they have less heart than I thought.

    1. JK says:

      Wonderfully stated, Alex. It reminds me of Chris Rock’s wonderful routine when he talked about folks celebrating O.J.’s acquittal, darting down streets, screaming, “We won! We won!”

      “What exactly did we win?” Rock said, with a little profanity sprinkled in. “I go to the mailbox every day looking for my O.J. prize. I haven’t gotten anything.”

      In an odd sense, I don’t think it has anything to do with Paterno, per se, but rather the worshipper’s warped senses being singed. “This can’t happen to my guy!” they say. So, rather than accept and admit what happened and move on, they attack those of us who poke holes through their heroes.

    2. Robert Richardson says:

      You make good points and I don’t want to split hairs. At the risk of treading through a minefield here, I’d just like to note one thing maybe irrelevant or not to this case. One of the untold stories of WWII was that not all the Germans drank the Nazi’s kool aid. There was an active cadre of civilian resistance that was brutally suppressed and I’m not referring to “Operation Valkyrie”

      1. JK says:

        Agreed, Robert. Not all Germans were Nazis.

        But I think Alex speaks to a larger point about a self-induced brainwash and resultant group-think. It’s Orwellian.

      2. Alex P. says:

        Yes, you are right, Robert. The history is nuanced. I hesitated to analogize using WWII and the holocaust because it is so often trivialized when people make analogies like this. Unfortunately, often people invoke the comparison to situations that do not even come close to meeting the level of atrocity that was perpetrated during the holocaust. My big point with it was that I hope the trial brings out as much of the unsettling details as possible, at least as much as the victims’ courage will allow (which looks to be a tremendous amount of courage at this point.)

        1. Alex P. says:

          Yes, to break through the group-think.

          1. Robert Richardson says:

            Your group think analogy was well put. It is a dangerous aspect of human psychology that I’m afraid will never be eradicated despite historical tragedies. It is something that should always be “lime lighted” in order to light the path we SHOULDN’T go down.

    3. Sam says:

      Comparing anything to Nazi Germany is insensitive, moronic, offensive, and downright stupid.Where is your shame??

      1. JK says:

        Alex used it to make a larger point, Sam, not to say the two are equivalent. You’re welcome, however, to comment on Penn State. Any thoughts?

  14. pugphan says:

    What has me really annoyed with these outcomes is the press calling them peds.
    They aren’t pedophiles, peds like kids of the opposite gender. Remember lollita?
    These guys are all sodomites, and I wish they were appropriately tagged. They are
    “Sodomites!” smokersodysseycom

  15. Robert Richardson says:

    This is one of the most horrific cases I can remember in my lifetime. You always see a rush to judgment in almost all cases. The vast majority of the time there is no foundation created when the public renders their verdict almost immediately but there have been legal proceedings and testimonies to give this one validity. What really disturbs me is the overwhelming pushback that is evident. It goes beyond a sick sense of loyalty; I think there is something more evil behind it. To ignore evil or rationalize it is just as evil. One sad thing is that I don’t think Joe Paterno will be around to officially go on the record. Though I do think about his legacy (I am a fan of his). I have to remember as with all of you out there that we must not forget the victims here. We must try to never let this happen again!

    1. JK says:

      Thanks, Robert.

      As boys we worship men. But once we become men we should be way less jaded. Paterno was one thing 20 years ago, but he’s another thing now. As you said, we can’t let loyalty interfere with facts.

      On a far smaller scale, I worshipped Muhammad Ali. Yet I kept recalling accounts of the way he treated Joe Frazier. Eventually, I had to admit my hero was (at least in this case) a very mean man.

      I still admire Ali, for obvious reasons. But there’s no excuse for what he did to Frazier. None.

      1. Robert Richardson says:

        I don’t want to deviate from the subject but you did go to the Ali – Frazier analogy, (which is a decent one in the context of this subject). As a child growing up Ali was unabashedly my hero. I even met him as a young adult and was all goo goo eyed. Despite my admiration for him still, I do accept Frazier was definitely the better man and Ali failed him and all of us. But we are all human and especially our heroes fall short of the glory we heap upon them. This “Sandusky thing” should make us realize that nothing created by men should be beyond reproach. We all must be held accountable or we are doomed to repeat mistakes. Not to minimize the victims here but from a pure football point of view, it is sad that the Joe Pa legacy will be defined by this. When it came time to make a stand and protect children, he failed miserably by passing the buck to protect an image. That action or inaction is bigger than all his gridiron achievements

        1. JK says:

          I couldn’t have said it better, Robert.

          And I want to be clear that I’m NOT comparing Ali to Paterno. I alluded only to the dynamic between hero and hero worshipper. And took me a good 20 years to admit that Ali was hideous to Frazier. Joe actually kept Ali financially afloat while he was banned from boxing. Ali repaid him by branding him an Uncle Tom. Awful.

          What’s most alarming about Paterno’s apologists (at least the ones who emailed me) is that they’re all at least 30 years old. At what point does logic kick in?

          1. Robert Richardson says:

            Absolutely right! There is no comparison between the Ali analogy and Joe Pa’s. I think it maybe a conduit for some of these apologists to understand. Its kind of ironic this is coming up like this. I happened to share my experience about meeting the champ and how classy he was over Thanksgiving dinner. After that topic died out one of the men present (a father no doubt) says to all “Don’t you think this Joe Paterno thing is getting blown out of proportion?” It was time for the schooling to begin but honestly, looking back on that, I still don’t think they got it. I’ve really thought about this since then and feel most of the push back has to do with personal issues. Some of these apologists have their own demons (whatever they are) they feel guilty of and don’t want to be held accountable for.

    2. Jen NJ 77 says:

      I have to say as a sports enthusiast (particularly baseball Yankees
      and football Giants) that I appreciate your articles as they are
      insightful even when I don’t always entirely agree.

      The article crossing Sandusky to Syracus was brilliant though. Your
      correct in the fact that their isn’t enough to draw from the Syracuse
      incident yet. Plus its too convoluted as well.

      I can’t believe the mentality of some of these Penn Staters. They are
      so blinded with nittany pride that they are completely unwillingly to
      open their eyes whatsoever to this issue. It astounds me as well that
      they defend without logic Paterno and Sandusky. Its the same smug
      pride that protected him in the first place. Penn State is arrogant
      and prideful to a fault. As you pointed out Paterno was a control
      freak down to dotting the i’s and crossing t’s. Its ludicrous to
      believe he could be oblivious to this travesty.

      How football or anything could supersede putting away a monster is
      beyond me. Perhaps I’m being foolishly naive in my perspective but I
      feel that had Penn State done the moral thing and taken action
      immediately this wouldn’t remotely be making them look terrible. If at
      the first whiff of this Sandusky disgrace it has been handled in the
      end Penn State would have looked like they slayed a big ugly dragon.
      Instead, they look like they helped the dragon rape and pillage

      So again I thank you for this article and I will certainly reference
      it when combating stupidity.

      1. JK says:

        Thank you, Jen. I expected far more savage responses to today’s column. Dare we say the haters have learned something?

        Group hug!

  16. Sully says:

    Words of wisdom.

    And anyone willing to trash Jason be prepared to answer the following:

    Do you think that 55 year old man with a checkered past + 10 year old boy + both being naked in the shower + “horseplay” = call the cops?

    If not then why not?
    If so then why didn’t anyone call the cops?

    (And no, the VP of Finance is not a police officer)

    And also where are the sworn grand jury statements regarding Syracuse?

    If you don’t have solid answers for any of those questions, then think twice about trashing Jason here.

    1. Robert Richardson says:

      Good point Sully. By his own admission he regrets taking showers with 10 year old boys and horsing around with them. Come on man !!!!!!

      1. Sully says:

        I have yet to hear a response to that equation
        Even the biggest pom pom waving “Joe Pa is a God” Penn State fan can’t answer it.

    2. JK says:

      And thanks to you, Sully. Rather than confess and console, the Paterno apologists jump into attack mode. We might also ask why Sandusky was canned in 1999, the year after the first report was written about him. He’d just won Assistant Coach of the Year and was Paterno’s presumed successor. Then suddenly, at 55, he’s retiring?

      Of course, the haters say that you and I are the same person. Pretty laughable that I double as a Red Sox fan in California or you double as a Yankees fan in New York, but no one ever accused them of being rational.

      1. Sully says:

        As I said in the other column, if Paterno never asked a question why Sandusky retired in 1999 and never wondered if it had to do with the kid accusing him in 1998, then Paterno is the single least inquisitive person on the planet Earth

        1. JK says:

          That’s putting it mildly, Sully. If a player belched a mile away, Paterno could tell you what the kid had for lunch.

          Would it stun you to learn that Paterno knew a decade earlier?

          1. Jen NJ 77 says:

            It wouldn’t stun me in the least. I’m just surprised that nobody tossed him early. I just literally can’t understand why anyone would keep protecting him.

      2. jamie says:

        Did it ever occur to you that the allegation that Sandusky showered with a young boy (and that’s what McQuary reported to Paterno in spite of the universities investigation clearing him & the Stat College Police refusing to release the investigation of that report), was abhorent enough in itself to Paterno that he TOLD Sandusky to retire?

  17. JK says:

    Wow. Thank you, Victor. I will rely on your response once the haters start rolling in. Your commentary means a lot to me.

  18. Victor Cruz says:

    Good distinction between the Fine accusations and Sandusky “case”. What gives the Sandusky case its foundation and validity is the “official”, let me say it again “OFFICIAL” grand jury indictment. I suggest before anyone comments on this case, they should take the time and read it before blindly throwing around defenses or attacks with certitude. Yet what is disturbing is that there is an element that will ignore the indictment and circle the wagons. This goes beyond a twisted sense of loyalty to PSU or Joe Pa because this case is not about the institution of PSU; it’s about its gatekeepers. It needs to be noted that a university is supposed to be a center of learning for young adults. It is a place to for grooming the future leaders of our society. It is supposed to be a SAFE place period! It is true that this story is about a monster that created a framework to actualize his hideous impulses. But what goes equally hand in hand were the bystanders, those entrusted with the sanctity of the innocence of youths who did NOTHING to ensure their safety. The story is about the victims and their shattered lives. All sexual assault victims have fractured psyches and I speak from a professional as well as personal level. Equally important is to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. If we don’t hold the gatekeepers accountable then we are doomed to repeat this over and over again. As a society we have an inherent, an intrinsic responsibility to protect the young and the weak. If “we” don’t, if “we” just look away, then “we” are just as culpable as the Sanduskys of the world. And if you know this and consider JK just another “Hack” anyway, then “YOU CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH”

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Watch & Listen LIVE