No child molesters nor enablers. No gov't child killers- mass murderers nor their enablers.

Or woman.

Yeah, let's shut the school down!!!! Let's string somebody up!!! This is the worst thing that ever happened, in the history of the world!!!! Wow, now I feel so much better.....

Glad you're not my grandfather. Any idea how many lives were ruined by this? Not just the victims, but their families, relationships, etc. And for years to come as well. Also, there is no way sandusky just became a pedophile 20 years ago. No telling how many victims there truly are. All for the sake of saving their football team. FOOTBALL people. That's just so wrong.

Yeah right Grandfather , just a few little kids being raped by full grown men . No big deal right ? What a jerk .

Penn State leadership failed. One admin died, 3 lost their jobs. They will probably be indicted on further charges.

The missing 5th man is the PSU Board of Trustees. They failed to ensure accountability of the President to the Trustees on matters critical to the institution. They are culpable (if not at the same level) as the rest. Perhaps they should be relieved of their duties as well... if you want to clean house. Lots of attorneys, business leaders, former alumni and employees on this board.

I'm pretty sure Penn State athletics will take a major hit from the NCAA on this one. Death penalty? No I don't think so.

The whole story has not yet been completed. The Freeh Report is an "ex parte" (from one side only) document, written with a prosecutors perspective, full of opinions and unproven conjectures, written with hindsight and payed for with millions of dollars by people who want to protect themselves from liability. There is nothing in the report that proves actions were taken with "mens rea" (a guilty mind/knowingly doing something wrong) by the people he criticised.

If the life of Louis Freeh were put under as much scrutiny as was done by this investigation, much worse things would be found. Freeh had to resign as FBI Director after a Business Week article recommended it citing such things as: "Carnivore", the Waco Seige cover up, insubordination to Att. Gen. Janet Reno, the Robert Hasssen mole case, ordering use of FBI sharpshooters at Ruby Ridge which led to the death of Randy Weaver's wife (an innocent victim)(a Justice Department inquiry recommended that Freeh be censured), etc., etc.. Also consideration must be given to the recent history of the Catholic Church's pedophilia scandal and that Freeh is a Catholic with five sons who were educated in the Catholic school system, From this perspective Freeh may be biased to over aggressively seek vengeance against any form of child molestation or enablement thereof. Perhaps with his history of being a Judge, he would have known to recuse himself from this type of investigation.

There are untold difficulties which are likely to arise when "personalities" are played against each other, this is why "heroes are better when they are dead people"

You can look at the investigation of the Penn State/Sandusky pedophile scandal in two lights without personalities, replacing names with letters, for a "blind review". Then you can get to the questions, just like in algebra.

The first question is there a coverup of pedophile activity to preserve the football program?

Question two. How much pedophile activity is tolerated to preserve a football program, ( or any program for that matter )?

If pedophile activity is tolerated to a certain level to preserve a program, what happens when that level is breached. That's like saying we'll tolerate 3 incidents, but at 4 incidents we won't tolerate it, but then we have to have an explanation for the first three incidents as well. Do we say that 3 incidents are allowed at Penn State before the program is shut down at 4 incidents, but only 2 incidents are allowed at Oklahoma?

These are examples, but one can see that overall, the tolerance limit must be 0, no matter by whom, or where, or if it's high school football, college football, or pro football. Ted Kyzinski, the Unibomber isn't in the federal pen because he was brilliant. Ted Kyzinski is in the pen because he used his brilliance to bomb people through the mail system. There isn't any tolerance for allowing people to bomb other people through the mail, whether they are brilliant or not. Sandusky was a very capable coach in his sport. That's not the point. The point is he used his position to the disadvantage of his victims.

Just wait until people are dead to review their records to make them heroes. If they are heroes they'll know it, and probably say, " No I'm not. I was doing what was expected of me. "

To Steve Herbert

Algebra (or logic) does not take one to the two questions which you pose and which show an inherent bias. Sandusky is now convicted as a known pedophile. This is not something that was known by anyone in 1998 or in 2001. The 1998 complaint against Sandusky was known to and investigated by the Police including a Police detective (Schreffler), the PA Department of Public Welfare in Harrisburg (including a caseworker named Lauro), the Centre County Children and Youth Services (Miller) including an interview with the child and a report by a counselor (Seasock), the Centre County DA's Office (Arnold). The conclusion of the investigation which was reported to the PSU Adminstration and by inference to Paterno was "no sexual assault occurred". Neither the University administrators nor the football coach were trained in child psychology/child sexual abuse/molestation, nor were they knowledgeable about the details of the investigation nor did they have any reason to question its result. The 2001 incident hinges on the testimony of Mike McQueary. He has changed his story several times and is not a completely creditable witness. He apparently "heard" noises in the Lasch Bldg. showers which he interpreted as sexual in nature then "saw" Sandusky in the shower with a boy. He didn't actually see rape, oral sex, etc.. A measure of how far over the line Sandusky's behavior could be judged to be based on the picture painted by McQueary's story at the time can be infered from the testimony and behavior of Dr. Jonathan Dranov. Dr. Dranov heard McQueary's story immediately after the incident and is an impeccably trained and qualified, Board Certified Internal Medicine specialist (Ivy League Medical School, Phi Beta Kappa, etc.). He is knowledgeable of and trained in the mandatory reporting requirements of child abuse and molestation. He did not report the incident to the authorities so it must be assumed that what McQueary said did not meet the requirements for reporting. He heard the story within a day or so of when Paterno did so it is not unresonable to assume they heard the more or less same story (which McQueary changed several times years later after he knew several victims had made accusations against Sandusky). The 2001/McQueary shower incident alleged victim (victim 2) was never found or questioned about what occurred in the shower. McQueary has not been tested to see if he can actually distinguish the sounds of sex being performed in the shower. This is similiar to testimony in a serial murder case where one witness says he heard a murder being committed but the victim was never found either dead or alive.

Paterno was a football coach who competed on a high level and had many responsibilities to fulfill. He reported what he knew to his superiors - one of whom was in charge of the Police. There is so far no proof that he interfered with the process - only conjecture by a prosecutor writing an "ex parte" document. One question that should be investigated is: What knowledge of the incidents in 1998 and 2001 did the Board of Trustees have? This would include the current Governor of PA who was a Pennsylvania DA in 1998 and is on the current Board of Trustees and controls many of the members (they are his appointees). Freeh says they knew nothing but considering that he was involved in several coverups while he was Director of the FBI, I think this should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also please note that Ted Kyzinski was caught because he wrote a newspaper article that his brother recognized and turned him in.

I recognize that Ted Kyzinski's brother turned him in. The FBI couldn't figure things out. As I stated, Kyzinski's brilliance was not his crime.

"So far there is no proof". The "proof" will be presented in the trial, and the jury and the judges will determine if it's proof or not. Nixon was not found in the Watergate Building. Tape recordings were accidentally erased. This didn't prevent the fall of Nixon from grace.

What is on public trial here is the tolerance of covering up crimes ( pedophilia ) to maintain a football program. I'm sure the local city government, police department as well, had an interest financially in the Penn State Football team's success...jobs, pensions, health care, blah, blah, blah.

Sounds of sex in the shower? This isn't ornithology where one distinguishes the song of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker, from the Pilated Woodpecker. What's the question... was the victim a screamer or a moaner?

Everything is conjecture until the trial. Both legal teams present their evidence, and it is the jury who decides "the proof". In the case of Ted Kyzinski, AFTER HIS BROTHER TURNED HIM IN TO THE FBI, then the FBI went out in the woods and brought the entirety of Kyzinski's cabin in for forensic evaluation, typewriter and all, and it was with that additional evidence that Kyzinski was convicted. If you will note, the authorities are searching for ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE now that they have a reasonable belief a coverup occurred. Same thing happened with the Watergate Scandal.

The question of algebra is still there. How many cases of child molestation are tolerable for an institutions football program to flourish? And how do you regulate the amount of crime an institution can cover up before it reaches the level it is no longer tolerable? Nixon reached that level. Sandusky reached that level. As long as there is an Office of President of the United States, Watergate will be a historical review point. As long as there are sex crimes against minors covered up by football programs, the name Penn State will come up.

A Police detective, a PA Department of Public Welfare case worker, a Centre County Children and Youth Services (CYS) worker and a CYS counselor (all trained and knowledgeable in child sexual abuse regulations) determined: "no sexual assault occurred". The Centre County DA's did not prosecute. None of these people have a connection to the University or Paterno. So what was there to "cover up"? To assert that they were "Watergate" type henchmen or mafia under the employment and influence of the University or Paterno as you allege, strains the concept of believability. If the waxing and waning story of McQueary is to be extrapolated into the assertion it is solid proof of child rape, then you have to explain why Dr. Dranov, who was not an employee of the University or under the control of Paterno and who is trained in these matters, did not report it himself and then follow up on the report to be sure something was done. But you hold a football coach and University administrators to a higher standard than the people who are actually trained in and deal with these matters as part of their jobs. Is this fair?

I agee with you that Mr. Freeh may have viewed this as an opportunity to make a mark for himself in history. So he wrote a report that enumerates all the things that could have been done differently and that could have resulted in a different outcome. It reads like an instruction manual/case study course in the prevention of child molestation. But it is written retrospectively, after victims came forward and Sandusky was convicted. And the people you and Freeh are accusing of allowing pedophilia to occur are considered untrained laymen with respect to this problem while the experts in this problem are left unbesmirched. Is this fair?

The conversation is getting intelligent. Where in the news are all of these "others" which are now brought out in the conversation. The point still stands that each side will be able to bring forth their evidence and question the validity of the evidence of the opposing side, and a jury will make its determination(s).

Legal question for you. If one side or the other (legal teams) has evidence sequestered, is that "cover up". I think rules of evidence would say that it was not, but the side that had it's "evidence" sequestered would say or imply that it was.

I would like to see Oliver Wendell Holmes definition of the word "fair", since he was the Justice who is known for his quote that the Supreme Court is not looking for justice, but the interpretation of the law. In that vein I made my point of how many cases of child abuse would be considered "tolerable". It certainly isn't fair that a beer tap at Penn State would go out of business because a football program is shut down, because an assistant coach committed a sex crime, that higher ups supposedly covered up. It's not fair that a plane crashes into your grandmother's house and kills her, when all the statistics imply it shouldn't happen.

So fairness, I'm not to sure who's the ultimate judge of that. The implication is that you protect people equally, but when in doubt you protect a young person before you protect an old person, sort of like women and children first in the life boats, and the captain is off last. Paterno is off last, or at least the university president. If Penn State sinks, the students get distributed out to other university programs or schools well before the school administration gets distributed out.

That Freeh viewed this as an opportunity, or not, it's not pertinent. Some other judge could have done the same or quite similar as far as the job of investigation goes. It may have been better, it may have been worse. That's not the point. If there's smoke, you investigate for fire, because the public goes by the saying, " Where there's smoke, there's fire." It doesn't say where there's smoke there's a three alarm fire, a two alarm fire or a five alarm fire. That's determined by investigation.

And this goes back to my question of tolerance, only I'll reword it for this last example. How much fire do you tolerate in a structure before you call the fire department? A two alarm fire? A three alarm fire? A five alarm fire? This is to assume that were talking about multi resident living quarters such as an apartment building, not a dog house. Here you are at the Supreme Court level of analysis, can you yell "fire" in a crowded theater as a prank and have it protected as free speech? Can you have accusations of crimes against minors protected if they occur in an institution, but prosecuted if they don't occur in an institution? How are you going to make that determination if the accusations are not investigated?

You need to have actually read the Freeh Report and have kept up with the history of what really happened and not just rely on news (especially sports news) opinion articles or your own personal opinions before you start making authorative comments. Go do that and I will discuss it with you then.

I'm signing off now. Good luck.

Good gravy, there's more than the Freeh Report to keep up on. This issue will have ramifications over a broad spectrum if in fact Penn State Football comes to an end because of this scandal. There are sports programs outside of Penn State. There are child molestation issues outside of Penn State. If Penn State Football goes down, the Catholic Church child molestation issue will certainly be reviewed in a "new light".

Personal opinions are important in this country. Personal opinions vote, Votes elect people who formulate public policy. Public policy is what puts people in jail, or keeps them out of jail, amoung other things. You don't have to be able to name the Watergate burglars to know that Nixon left the Office of the President of the United States.

No comparison, you are comparing apples to oranges. JFK had affairs with adults-consensual affairs. Sandusky raped children and Joe Paterno thought his football games were more important than children's lives.

Albert Einstein was an atheist so clearly he isn't perfect either.

HUH? What is that supposed to mean? I'll take a serial adulterer, a weed smoker and an Atheist any day over a pedophile and his enabler! I would say they are much, much further down the scale of being less than perfect.

I didn't know if this was a satirical comment or not. If it is something posted seriously then njth has some serious problems thinking that decisions by consenting adults is even remotely comparable to pedophilia. As far as atheism, who's to say that Einstein isn't right? Oh yes, the 'perfect' Christians.

First, Albert Einstein was not an atheist, he was a deist. Second, being an atheist hardly makes someone "clearly not perfect", being human does. Third, what theist is perfect? The latter is a rhetorical question since since a cornerstone of theism is that no human is perfect.

It is immensely disturbing that there is so much obvious hate in these threads!

------------------------------------------------------------

If I were you, I'd be more concerned about the obvious stupidity of some of the posters, yours in particular. The dumbing down is at critical mass and damn near complete...

I believed he was very popular because he was one of the best coach if not the best coach in that school history. His family and him donated and provided funding and help to the school and the kids. This is just the bad era for the downfall of a very well-done person in life.

nothing to see here...

Mike, I think you know that won't happen. Back to reality...