Penn State Scandal

[cw]

No, the police can also be liable but are not always solely or exclusively liable. In this case, various members of the Penn State Police were sued as well as Penn State, the DA's office, etc.
Defendants, besides Minder, are Penn State, Centre County, District Attorney Michael Madiera, former assistant District Attorney Lance Marshall and Penn State Officers Matthew Cover, Ryan Rodgers and Dustin Miller.

Also named are Penn State Detectives Stephanie L. Brooks and Christine D. Vile, Chief Stephen Shelow and Assistant Chief Thomas Sowerby and 10 John or Jane Does who are either unnamed Penn State police officers or members of the district attorney's staff.

My bad on the minder thing but, again, they lost, right?

That's immaterial. The potential for significant legal liability exists when one damages the reputation of another - particularly a "defensive coaching legend". The plaintiffs don't always lose these cases. An allegation like this has to be handled very carefully.

 

[Kin]

How did the guy "follow up properly" ?

I said, and I think you know enough to have read it, that he followed up independently, not "properly". He reported it to proper authorities and showed enough of a damn to at least pursue the matter.

He didn't chase it down. He didn't call the police when he got feedback from the school that Child Services had not advised them that anything had happened.

Again, as you said, Child services is an appropriate authority to report this to. Once he'd contacted them the responsibility to investigate and contact the police had passed to them.

There are a number of similarities between what happened to both men. The difference is that Child Services ultimately made something happen that he was unaware of until more than two years later without any additional effort on his part while the guys Paterno told didn't make anything happen.

As you have a tendency to do, you've perfectly summed up my point. DiNunzio contacted the proper authorities, Paterno told some guys.

And how do we know thatPaterno didn't follow up with Schultz and got told "we stopped Sandusky from coming on the campus with kids in the interim (and whatever else they may have done with Sandusky) and it's still being investigated because we only have one witness account that isn't enough for a criminal case and  arguably not even enough for a civil case ..."

Again, the civilian administrator of the campus police is not the proper person to bring this to. If Paterno was so quick to pass the buck on this then he had the responsibility to at least pass it to the right person. Not the person who was in the best position to cover the university's ass.

If the two Penn State execs were willing to commit perjury to a grand jury, why are we supposed to ignore the possibility they lied to Paterno? Where's the evidence that they told Paterno the truth or didn't mislead him?

Are you really asking me for the evidence that something didn't happen? Really?

Or maybe when they updated Paterno, the school told Paterno they hadn't heard anything and like DiNunzio, Paterno shrugged his shoulders.

The difference, of course, being that DiNunzio could probably get some decent sleep knowing he'd passed the issue onto the proper authorities as opposed to thinking first and foremost of himself and the people he worked for.

 

[Kin]

That's immaterial. The potential for significant legal liability exists when one damages the reputation of another - particularly a "defensive coaching legend". The plaintiffs don't always lose these cases. An allegation like this has to be handled very carefully.

I'm actually going to come down on the side where precedent isn't immaterial and that, when suing someone over the damage to their reputation, you actually have to establish that there was either an intent to do so or a willful disregard for the consequences of your actions.

It is a frightening world where doing nothing other than pointing someone who claims to have witnessed a rape to the police qualifies as such.

 

[cw]

That's immaterial. The potential for significant legal liability exists when one damages the reputation of another - particularly a "defensive coaching legend". The plaintiffs don't always lose these cases. An allegation like this has to be handled very carefully.

I'm actually going to come down on the side where precedent isn't immaterial and that, when suing someone over the damage to their reputation, you actually have to establish that there was either an intent to do so or a willful disregard for the consequences of your actions.

It is a frightening world where doing nothing other than pointing someone who claims to have witnessed a rape to the police qualifies as such.

Most often allegations made in good faith to police are immune. When the word gets out otherwise, as the potential existed in this case, there's potential for trouble. If witnesses recant, there's potential for trouble. If the whole case is flimsy, there's potential for trouble, Etc. etc.

 

[Kin]

Most often allegations made in good faith to police are immune. When the word gets out otherwise, as the potential existed in this case, there's potential for trouble. If witnesses recant, there's potential for trouble. If the whole case is flimsy, there's potential for trouble, Etc. etc.

No, I'm sorry. You want to try and convince me that an Penn State would have been liable here if their response had been "Those are serious allegations, you need to report them to the police" you're going to have show me something where that was the case.

It's difficult to draw a line here in part because Penn State has authority over the police as well as Paterno/Curley/Schultz/McQueary and the rest but that's probably why the state police should be the ones notified. If all Penn State had done on the allegations side is tell McQueary to pass it on there's no way they'd be found liable.

 

[cw]

Most often allegations made in good faith to police are immune. When the word gets out otherwise, as the potential existed in this case, there's potential for trouble. If witnesses recant, there's potential for trouble. If the whole case is flimsy, there's potential for trouble, Etc. etc.

No, I'm sorry. You want to try and convince me that an Penn State would have been liable here if their response had been "Those are serious allegations, you need to report them to the police" you're going to have show me something where that was the case.

It's difficult to draw a line here in part because Penn State has authority over the police as well as Paterno/Curley/Schultz/McQueary and the rest but that's probably why the state police should be the ones notified. If all Penn State had done on the allegations side is tell McQueary to pass it on there's no way they'd be found liable.

But you're moving the goal posts some in your comments. What Penn State should have done or McQueary should have done is another issue. At issue is what Paterno did or did not do or should have done - and we're missing some key facts on that as to what took place and why - what Paterno's reasoning was for his various actions/decisions. But we all know he's been convicted in the court of public opinion without being able to go into that as the university tried to limit questions at his weekly press conference to football and then they cancelled it. His son was trying to set up their own press conference when they fired Paterno.

If Paterno went on alone after Penn state fell short, he entertained legal liabilities himself. He'd be trying to take a second hand report around his superiors from a witness who could change his story or recant or be wrong in some way. That's pretty shaky turf - particularly if McQueary wobbles - which in the grand jury testimony, he may have already. And again, often happens in these cases.

If McQueary had called the police immediately or gone directly to them, then Paterno would obviously have zero personal concern for his liability. If he told McQueary to do that and McQueary did so, again, he'd have no personal concern. If he told McQueary to do that and McQueary was reluctant, bringing in Schultz & Curley was the right thing for Paterno to do per the law.

To me, McQueary's conduct is far more questionable:
- he walked out on a 10 year old boy being sodomized and phoned his Daddy
- a 28 year old man laid his dilemma and indecision on what to do on his coach 'cause his Daddy told him to
- at any time, when nothing seemed to be happening, he was in the best position to go to the police of anyone at the university - far better position than Paterno or any of the others because he was the one and only witness
- and to date, he still has a job while avoiding the avalanche of criticism that's permanently tarnished and ended the career of his coach who he dragged into this mess through his own shortcomings or indecision on knowing what to do

Meanwhile, with the guys above Paterno, there's ample indication that Paterno trusted them to deal with this responsibly. And when they did not (and that could have been withheld from Paterno), Paterno is the primary public pi?ata without all the facts on the table.

When we talk about moral responsibility, in spite of the lack of all the facts, I'd struggle to rationalize how all of those others were not very likely worse in abdication of their moral responsibilities in this. But it's Paterno taking the worst of it when some of them had to have let him down. So far, Paterno's been taking worse media hits this week than Sandusky - the alleged predator.

 

[Kin]

But you're moving the goal posts some in your comments. What Penn State should have done or McQueary should have done is another issue. At issue is what Paterno did or did not do or should have done - and we're missing some key facts on that as to what took place and why - what Paterno's reasoning was for his various actions/decisions.

That's a joke, quite frankly. Joe Paterno's responsibilities and liabilities, whether as an employee of the university or just as a human adult man had the same responsibilities and I've been consistent about that. If Paterno was overly concerned with his own personal liabilities here he could have done what I said "Penn State" could have done. He could have said to McQueary "That is a serious allegation, you need to speak to the police," and satisfy both his moral and legal obligations as well as protected himself and the school. He then could have followed it up with McQueary independently by asking "Did you ever speak to the police?"

Simple, basic, and really the minimum anyone in a position of authority should be expected to do. That Paterno decided to stick his head in the sand is what got him fired and rightfully so.

If McQueary had called the police immediately or gone directly to them, then Paterno would obviously have zero personal concern for his liability. If he told McQueary to do that and McQueary did so, again, he'd have no personal concern.

This is where we agree. Paterno should have firmly, in no uncertain terms, have told McQueary to speak the police. I think then that Paterno had a responsibility to make sure McQueary did that. From what we know, Paterno did neither.

To me, McQueary's conduct is far more questionable:
- he walked out on a 10 year old boy being sodomized and phoned his Daddy
- a 28 year old man laid his dilemma and indecision on what to do on his coach 'cause his Daddy told him to
- at any time, when nothing seemed to be happening, he was in the best position to go to the police of anyone at the university - far better position than Paterno or any of the others because he was the one and only witness
- and to date, he still has a job while avoiding the avalanche of criticism that's permanently tarnished and ended the career of his coach who he dragged into this mess through his own shortcomings or indecision on knowing what to do

I can't defend McQueary much here. He was a grown man and should have done a lot more than he did. The only extenuating circumstances, that I think you've soft sold, is what it meant to a guy like McQueary to bring it to Paterno himself and the role and influence Paterno has.

That said, if McQueary followed Paterno out the door I wouldn't be upset.

When we talk about moral responsibility, in spite of the lack of all the facts, I'd struggle to rationalize how all of those others were not very likely worse in abdication of their moral responsibilities in this. But it's Paterno taking the worst of it when some of them had to have let him down. So far, Paterno's been taking worse media hits this week than Sandusky - the alleged predator.

Well, ok, now I think you've crossed the line into pretty crazy hyperbole. Paterno hasn't "gotten the worst of it". Other people have been fired. Schultz and Curley were, as you say, even more culpable than Paterno and, as a result, have been charged with felonies.

The only reason that Paterno has gotten more media attention is that:

A) Paterno is a beloved public figure
B) Because of A) there are actually some people who didn't think Paterno should be fired

Paterno's head was called for because of his failure to act professionally and responsibly. If you want to categorize that as a worse charge than being publically accused of being a child molester, well, I disagree but it would make me understand your position a little more.

 

[Fanatic]

cnnbrkCNN Breaking News
Assistant coach who reported #Penn_State incident receives threats http://on.cnn.com/svezFv

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

Wow.

 

[Kin]

cnnbrkCNN Breaking News
Assistant coach who reported #Penn_State incident receives threats http://on.cnn.com/svezFv

Seriously? I mean, seriously?

Wow.

Yeah, seriously. I mean, it's stupid if those threats are from moron PSU fans upset that JoePa got canned but McQueary definitely has a good deal of the blame on his shoulders here.

 

[hockeyfan1]

Here is another story so eerily similar to the Penn State fiasco...

http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201111/another-era-and-another-sport-sex-abuse-scandal-still-inflicting-pain-today

...there was Donald Fitzpatrick, the longtime Red Sox clubhouse manager who lured Ogletree and at least a dozen other young, African-American boys into two decades of systemic sexual abuse.

Not only has a serial child molester infiltrated sports before, he did so with one of baseball's most storied franchises. Should the allegations against Sandusky prove true, the two cases are strikingly similar. Both men seduced their victims with the lure of big-time athletics. Both bribed them with equipment and other swag. Both enjoyed watching boys shower. Both fondled their victims and engaged in oral sex. Both committed crimes in plain view and, despite getting caught, were swaddled by a power structure that buried the truth to protect those highest up in the organization. Both used threats and mind games to silence their prey for decades. And both ended up being exposed as predators far too late, after they had laid waste to innocent lives.

 

[hockeyfan1]

To even have the gall to proclaim self-innocence... an interview with a 'sick' mind...

link

Jerry Sandusky, 67, said on NBC News? ?Rock Center? Monday night that there was no abuse and that any activities in a campus shower with a boy were just horseplay, not molestation.

?I am innocent of those charges,? Sandusky said. ?? I could say that I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids. I have showered after workouts. I have hugged them, and I have touched their legs without intent of sexual contact.?

Asked whether he was sexually attracted to underage boys, he said ?sexually attracted, no. I enjoy young people, I love to be around them, but, no, I?m not sexually attracted to young boys.?

Asked if there was anything he had done wrong, Sandusky said, ?I shouldn?t have showered with those kids.?

?We were showering and horsing around, and he actually turned all the showers on and was actually sliding across the floor, and we were, as I recall, possibly like snapping a towel?horseplay,? he said.

Sandusky said Paterno never asked him about his behavior or what he might have done.

He had previously maintained his innocence through his attorney, Joe Amendola

?They have other people who are saying they saw something, but they don?t have actual people saying, `This is what Jerry did to me,?? Amendola said. ?We?re working to find those people, and when the time comes, and if we are able to do that, we think this whole case will change dramatically.?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

There are some reports now that McQueary did in fact speak with police, according to an e-mail he sent to a friend.  We'll have to see if it's true.

 

[cw]

Assistant coach went to police, helped stop assault, e-mail says
CNN link
McQueary also wrote that he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" following the alleged incident involving Sandusky.

Schultz testified to the Grand Jury (on page 9)
Schultz testified that .... he believed that he and Curley asked "the child protection agency" to look into the matter.

So let's put ourselves in Paterno's potential and now very plausible position that he was told what the above people more responsible and more directly involved told others: his assistant coach told Paterno he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" and Schultz (oversaw police) told Paterno "he and Curley asked "the child protection agency" to look into the matter" - like Schultz told the Grand Jury.

In other words, the coach potentially got assurance from two different people much more directly involved and responsible to act that the police on two levels and the child protection agency had been notified. What is his moral responsibility then?

When one can reasonably ask such a question based upon the testimony we have to date, it continues to underscore my concern about a rush to judgement. In my opinion, we do not have all the facts to hammer Paterno at this point in time the way he's been hammered in the media and court of public opinion.

A Paterno biographer wrote about this here:
link

I also looked at the Penn State procedures for reporting sexual abuse. I cannot find anything close to a clear case where Paterno did anything wrong there either. He appears to have not only follow the state law but the procedures set out by his employer - who fired him.

This is an opinion from a US criminal  defense lawyer and former special prosecutor:
link
I don't agree with all of it either but he makes the case that what Paterno did "was both morally and legally correct."

I absolutely agree with him on his point about libel. Two of the worst things you can allege about someone is that they're a criminal and that they're a sexual deviant. In this case, one would be alleging both about Sandusky based upon what a third party told him. No reasonable lawyer on the planet would ask that of their client because they also have a moral responsibility to the well being of their own family - that they don't get sued for everything they're worth. Once you're informed the cops and child protection services have been told, I have a hard time with those screaming about moral responsibility when all Paterno may have fallen for were lies (assurances the right thing had been done) from more than one person he trusted and worked with for as many as 40 years. Based upon what has been reported, that is a very distinct possibility as to how it went down.

The criminal lawyer also makes the point that "Paterno should not have approached Sandusky, for fear he tip him off to the investigation" which is consistent with what the police told one or more of the mothers in terms of taking their story elsewhere - except where the police listened into a conversation the mother had with Sandusky that was criminally inconclusive in 1998.

Meanwhile, Sandusky's lawyer claims that the alleged victim of the McQueary witnessed incident denies he was assaulted:
link

The above just further affirms there was a rush to judgment to lynch Paterno in the media. Maybe Joe is morally culpable and maybe he isn't. The facts of what happened should determine that - not media looking to boost ratings and sell papers with a scant set of facts without having heard all the details from all involved.

 

[Kin]

In other words, the coach potentially got assurance from two different people much more directly involved and responsible to act that the police on two levels and the child protection agency had been notified. What is his moral responsibility then?

I think it's pretty telling that McQueary, who you had some pretty harsh words for earlier, writes a self-serving email that fits into the story you want to tell about this scandal and all of a sudden his word is just fine for you.

The reality is that in the email there's no timeline there or details that contradicts the fundamental issue here of Paterno being told about a witnessed rape and not urging the witness to contact the police, instead waiting a day before talking to someone who was his "superior" in name only and someone who was a civilian head of a campus police force. Not only that, he either didn't press McQueary on what he saw or soft-sold what McQueary told him to Curley or Schultz.

We don't know what the Board of Trustees know about the really bizarre series of circumstances concerning Sandusky's relationship with the school and what Paterno knew about it. Because of that, I'm pretty comfortable in leaving the issue of his firing up to them.

As to the rest of us? There's enough we do know that isn't being disputed to think Joe Paterno failed in both his responsibilities as a responsible adult as well as the person who, and let's not try to hide behind titles here, ran the Penn State football program.

 

[cw]

In other words, the coach potentially got assurance from two different people much more directly involved and responsible to act that the police on two levels and the child protection agency had been notified. What is his moral responsibility then?

I think it's pretty telling that McQueary, who you had some pretty harsh words for earlier, writes a self-serving email that fits into the story you want to tell about this scandal and all of a sudden his word is just fine for you.

You might have a point if that was true but all you're doing is pushing another straw man. That is NOT the case I've made.

McCreary's word isn't "fine" for me. Never was. It remains to be seen whether he's being truthful and accurate or not.

I cited McQueary previously cynically and as an example because you could hammer him with the same bogus yardstick being used to hammer Paterno. The reality is that we don't know enough to hammer either man. Step up to the plate and prove otherwise with real facts - not the loose joining of arbitrary dots to support a hypothesis.

It is plausible that McQueary is telling the truth when he said he told the guy who oversaw the police (that no one disputes he did) and that he also discussed the matter with police (from his email). And therefore, it's also very plausible that's what he told his boss, Paterno, that he did. It's also very plausible that Schultz told Paterno what he told the Grand Jury - that he though it was reported to Child Protection Services.

Now, if you can step up and prove that didn't happen, then you might have point. But you can't because no one knows yet. There are at least four investigations going on to determine what happened here. That should give you a wee bit of a tiny clue that there's a lot of folks still trying to find out what really happened.

Because a very plausible scenario like the above exists, you do not have enough to convict on moral responsibility. Like everyone else, you don't have nearly enough hard established facts as to who knew what, who did what, etc, etc. We don't know all that Paterno did or did not do yet. All we know is that somewhere, somehow, things broke down and didn't go as one would hope or expect based upon the limited knowledge we have to date.

Meanwhile, you've clearly and in my opinion, foolishly joined the stampede to judgement without nearly enough facts to establish that someone is guilty of anything.

The reality is that in the email there's no timeline there or details that contradicts the fundamental issue here of Paterno being told about a witnessed rape and not urging the witness to contact the police, instead waiting a day before talking to someone who was his "superior" in name only and someone who was a civilian head of a campus police force. Not only that, he either didn't press McQueary on what he saw or soft-sold what McQueary told him to Curley or Schultz.

Prove that. Show us the proof that is what transpired.

For example: The Grand Jury report says that Paterno, Curley & (later in the GJ report) Shultz met face to face the day after McQueary came to Paterno's house. How do you know that Paterno didn't call Curley & Schultz right after meeting with McQueary to arrange the meeting? It happened on a weekend. The meeting with McQueary was on a Saturday and the meeting with Schultz & Curley was on a Sunday. It's not like Paterno could wander down to their office because it was on a weekend. This isn't Star Trek where these guys can instantly transport themselves to Paterno's house. Paterno must have telephoned/emailed them to arrange the meeting prior to the face to face meeting taking place. We don't know when that took place or what got said prior to that meeting  but in your rush to judgment, you concluded Paterno "waiting a day before talking to someone who was his "superior"" Back that conclusion up for us with proof. Once again, you can't. They may well have been advised immediately and met face to face to follow up - review the steps they were going to take.

Another example: You claim Paterno "not urging the witness to contact the police". Prove that. McQueary says he did speak with the police. How do you know the timing of that? How do you know that McQueary didn't already contact the university police before speaking with Paterno and that the University police told McQueary he should follow a portion of the univeristy written procedure for reporting sexual assualt: go to his superior.

The university procedure is oriented around adults being the victim of sexual assault. It doesn't contemplate kids much if at all. Because of that, it is vicitm oriented - it tends to rely on the victim making the complaint. As such, it may have been misinterpreted (by even the police McQueary apparently spoke with) and the procedure within it followed that the witness report the incident to their superior.

If McQueary reported to Paterno that he had already spoken with the police and that they told him this was the procedure the police told him to follow because he was a witness and not a victim, why should Paterno then urge McQueary to report it to the police when he'd potentially already spoken with the police?

I'm not saying that is what happened. I am saying something like that is plausible from what I've read and heard after looking over the media, GJ report and university procedures. Therefore, your conclusion that Paterno didn't "urge the witness to contact police" is conjecture and another rush to judgment on your part. Paterno may have been confronted with McQueary's report after McQueary initially approached the police. And that would explain why McQueary says he spoke with police and why the police don't appear to have a formal report - it potentially explains part of the breakdown. Time and the investigation will hopefully reveal what went down.

We don't know what the Board of Trustees know about the really bizarre series of circumstances concerning Sandusky's relationship with the school and what Paterno knew about it. Because of that, I'm pretty comfortable in leaving the issue of his firing up to them.

Really. Remarkable. The university that had far more financial motive to cover up the sexual assualt up to avoid civil lawsuits and bad PR than Paterno gets a free pass to potentially serve him up as a sacrificial lamb for the media in your rush to judgment but Paterno is guilty of whatever it is you suspect him of based upon scant facts. That's a stretch of assumptions (or lack of thinking it through) going on there in my opinion.

As to the rest of us? There's enough we do know that isn't being disputed to think Joe Paterno failed in both his responsibilities as a responsible adult as well as the person who, and let's not try to hide behind titles here, ran the Penn State football program.

I think that's a bogus rush to judgment that is based upon scant and as shown above, your misinterpretation (flawed assumptions) of the known facts.

 

[Kin]

It's also very plausible that Schultz told Paterno what he told the Grand Jury - that he though it was reported to Child Protection Services.

It sure is. It absolutely is plausible that these two grown men sat around discussing the rape that took place within their facilities and arrived at, "Well, golly gee, I think it got reported to child protection services" and that satisfied both men. The question is whether that satisfied their responsibilities. To you, I guess it does.

Because a very plausible scenario like the above exists, you do not have enough to convict on moral responsibility.

I don't? Is that your expert, considered opinion from your time at Moral Responsibility school? Or from your many years on the bench with the Moral Responsibility court?

Like everyone else, you don't have nearly enough hard established facts as to who knew what, who did what, etc, etc. We don't know all that Paterno did or did not do yet.

Again, what I'm discussing are things that are in the grand jury report and aren't being denied or contradicted. Yes, you're right, we don't know everything that happened on every second of every day. We still can come to some reasonable conclusions.

Prove that. Show us the proof that is what transpired.

For example: The Grand Jury report says that Paterno, Curley & (later in the GJ report) Shultz met face to face the day after McQueary came to Paterno's house. How do you know that Paterno didn't call Curley & Schultz right after meeting with McQueary to arrange the meeting? It happened on a weekend. The meeting with McQueary was on a Saturday and the meeting with Schultz & Curley was on a Sunday. It's not like Paterno could wander down to their office because it was on a weekend. This isn't Star Trek where these guys can instantly transport themselves to Paterno's house.

You know what I liked on Star Trek? Those neat things that flipped open so Kirk could talk to the ship while down on the planet. Wouldn't it be grand if those things existed in our primitive age? So that things could get quickly and easily communicated over great distances even if someone weren't physically near a telephone?

We don't know when that took place or what got said prior to that meeting  but in your rush to judgment, you concluded Paterno "waiting a day before talking to someone who was his "superior"" Back that conclusion up for us with proof. Once again, you can't. They may well have been advised immediately and met face to face to follow up - review the steps they were going to take.

Again, this is in the GJ testimony from Paterno. He didn't report until the next day. You can make up all of the possibilities you want. They're contradicted by the testimony. 

The university procedure is oriented around adults being the victim of sexual assault. It doesn't contemplate kids much if at all. Because of that, it is vicitm oriented - it tends to rely on the victim making the complaint. As such, it may have been misinterpreted (by even the police McQueary apparently spoke with) and the procedure within it followed that the witness report the incident to their superior.

All part of a terrific argument as to why all of the people involved should have known that the campus police were not the appropriate law enforcement agency to speak to.

If McQueary reported to Paterno that he had already spoken with the police and that they told him this was the procedure the police told him to follow because he was a witness and not a victim, why should Paterno then urge McQueary to report it to the police when he'd potentially already spoken with the police?

And what if Bigfoot himself had physically blocked Joe Paterno from telling the police? What then? Prove it didn't happen! YOU CAN'T!

Really. Remarkable. The university that had far more financial motive to cover up the sexual assualt up to avoid civil lawsuits and bad PR than Paterno gets a free pass to potentially serve him up as a sacrificial lamb for the media in your rush to judgment but Paterno is guilty of whatever it is you suspect him of based upon scant facts. That's a stretch of assumptions (or lack of thinking it through) going on there in my opinion.

I know you're beyond hellbent in shaping the very world around you to give every last possible and ridiculous benefit of the doubt to Paterno here but please, try to avoid it with the easily quoted things I just wrote. I said I'm comfortable with leaving the decision of whether or not to fire Paterno up to the group of people who get to decide whether or not to fire Joe Paterno. We don't know what they know about the 2002 incident or the absolutely bizarre circumstances related to Sandusky's resignation and continued relationship with the school. All that is on my part is seeing a giant, pillowing cloud of black smoke roaring over State College and saying "huh, there's probably a fire".

But even on the face of it, your statement here is laughable. The members of the board of trustees have far less interest in covering anything up here than Joe Paterno had. Joe Paterno is the guy who lost his multi-million dollar a year job. Joe Paterno is the one whose 60+ year legacy is probably destroyed beyond recognition. Joe Paterno can still be sued. The program Paterno built is the one that could be demolished.

The members of the board of trustees are people who have an interest in the school, who probably care for the school and want the school to do well. They're not at risk here personally. Nobody on the board of trustees is, as you point out, getting their butt kicked by the media.

The guy with all the reason in the world to cover this up was Joe Paterno. The guy who presided over the Penn State football program while some ridiculously fishy things happened was Joe Paterno. The guy who responded to an accusation of child rape in his facilities with the barest minimum in terms of his legal responsibilities was Joe Paterno.

 

[Captain Canuck]

It looks like Syracuse is now involved in a similar scandal with an associate coach on their men's basketball team.

Story

 

[hockeyfan1]

Really. Remarkable. The university that had far more financial motive to cover up the sexual assualt up to avoid civil lawsuits and bad PR than Paterno gets a free pass to potentially serve him up as a sacrificial lamb for the media in your rush to judgment but Paterno is guilty of whatever it is you suspect him of based upon scant facts. That's a stretch of assumptions (or lack of thinking it through) going on there in my opinion.

The members of the board of trustees have far less interest in covering anything up here than Joe Paterno had. Joe Paterno is the guy who lost his multi-million dollar a year job. Joe Paterno is the one whose 60+ year legacy is probably destroyed beyond recognition. Joe Paterno can still be sued. The program Paterno built is the one that could be demolished.

The members of the board of trustees are people who have an interest in the school, who probably care for the school and want the school to do well. They're not at risk here personally. Nobody on the board of trustees is, as you point out, getting their butt kicked by the media.

The guy with all the reason in the world to cover this up was Joe Paterno. The guy who presided over the Penn State football program while some ridiculously fishy things happened was Joe Paterno. The guy who responded to an accusation of child rape in his facilities with the barest minimum in terms of his legal responsibilities was Joe Paterno.

I agree with the above statements wholeheartedly.  Sorry cw, but I (and I would presume others as well here) just cannot see how Paterno can be absolved of not having had "moral responsibility", when in fact, he was the power and the person who should have been the first to act and/or respond upon hearing of any potential gross conduct committed by any one of his fellow people. 


There aren't too many excuses.  With great power comes great responsibility, especially in an educational environment where people look up to you, respect you, and listen to advice from you.  Apparently, a football program with questionable people doing questionable things  was far more important to protect than a bunch of  sexually-molested kids.

 

[cw]

Really. Remarkable. The university that had far more financial motive to cover up the sexual assualt up to avoid civil lawsuits and bad PR than Paterno gets a free pass to potentially serve him up as a sacrificial lamb for the media in your rush to judgment but Paterno is guilty of whatever it is you suspect him of based upon scant facts. That's a stretch of assumptions (or lack of thinking it through) going on there in my opinion.

The members of the board of trustees have far less interest in covering anything up here than Joe Paterno had. Joe Paterno is the guy who lost his multi-million dollar a year job. Joe Paterno is the one whose 60+ year legacy is probably destroyed beyond recognition. Joe Paterno can still be sued. The program Paterno built is the one that could be demolished.

The members of the board of trustees are people who have an interest in the school, who probably care for the school and want the school to do well. They're not at risk here personally. Nobody on the board of trustees is, as you point out, getting their butt kicked by the media.

The guy with all the reason in the world to cover this up was Joe Paterno. The guy who presided over the Penn State football program while some ridiculously fishy things happened was Joe Paterno. The guy who responded to an accusation of child rape in his facilities with the barest minimum in terms of his legal responsibilities was Joe Paterno.

I agree with the above statements wholeheartedly.  Sorry cw, but I (and I would presume others as well here) just cannot see how Paterno can be absolved of not having had "moral responsibility", when in fact, he was the power and the person who should have been the first to act and/or respond upon hearing of any potential gross conduct committed by any one of his fellow people. 


There aren't too many excuses.  With great power comes great responsibility, especially in an educational environment where people look up to you, respect you, and listen to advice from you.  Apparently, a football program with questionable people doing questionable things  was far more important to protect than a bunch of  sexually-molested kids.

Before jumping all over me, this guy has no more credibility than Eklund. He's followed this story and seems to have some contacts with Penn State. Here's his facebook post of a rumour :
https://www.facebook.com/michaelgday/posts/10150937695270123
Michael Day
The rumor mill says that the grand jury testimony shows (not appearing in the indictment since these are not facts relevant to the indictments of Sandusky, Curley, Schultz) that 3 days after McQueary's meeting with Curley/Schultz, Paterno followed up and was told that a full investigation was occurring. Having heard nothing, approx. 3 months later, Paterno followed up again and was told that the police and the DA were not going to pursue the matter. It is reported that Paterno's reaction was one of anger and that he demanded that Sandusky be barred from campus. Paterno was told that he didn't have that authority as the football coach. Paterno then said he was going to bar Sandusky from all football facilities and was told that he did have that authority. (4th hand from the AG's office. Assign veracity accordingly.)
...
Michael Day I have been assured that the source is pretty reliable
...
Michael Day This is the way the legal system fails in conjunction current media. Grand Jury testimony is secret, but the Grand Jury Presentment, which is limited to the charges brought, is public, leaving the media room to make flash judgments about what was or was not said in the secret testimony. Witnesses, like Paterno and McQueary, are encouraged to keep silent to preserve their value as witnesses for the prosecution, but they then become prosecuted by the media.

Again, that's a just a facebook rumour. I'm not presenting it as a fact. I even have some questions about it as he suggests with "Assign veracity accordingly".

However, where in the Grand Jury report is the firm evidence the above could not have happen as he described? They did not go into much depth on what Curley, Schultz and Paterno said or did (only one of the incidents). Their big focus was on Sandusky's alleged crimes. Schultz says they reported it to Child Protection Services. Child Protection Services has no record of it. What if Schultz produces evidence to back his side of the story up something like his lawyer suggests he will?

Both Schultz & Churley are charged with perjury. What if they lied to Paterno? What is Paterno's moral responsibility if they successfully lied to throw Paterno off from doing his moral responsibility? If these people did lie to the Grand Jury, why is it impossible to conceive that they could have lied to Paterno? One can't respond to that, parkingconjecture and sticking to the facts in the Grand Jury report, to make the case because not enough is known or revealed by that report to conclude one way or the other.

The current DA reviewed the 1998 incident report and said that he would have done the same thing as his predecessor. There was not enough evidence to charge Sandusky.

McQueary has stated that he could not identify the victim he saw. It happened too fast, he was upset, etc. If the police can't produce a victim, there is no viable criminal case for that incident. So it is very plausible that conclusion might have been passed back to both Paterno and McQueary by Schultz & Curley and accepted because it relies on fairly basic legal reasoning.

It is quite possible Paterno didn't act as well as we might have expected - no question about it. But per the rumour as a plausible example, to conclude that is the only possible way this could have gone down at this juncture remains a rush to judgement rather handily in my opinion.

I'm waiting for more facts to determine the issue of "moral responsibly" on Paterno's part.

 

[cw]

Joe Paterno isn't an idiot. He would have known the difference between telling someone in the administration, who at best would have had the authority to put a fairly inappropriate organization like the Campus police on the case, and calling the state police.

Again, more and inaccurate conjecture on your part. The University Police are not "fairly inappropriate".

link
But State College police chief Tom King said Wednesday McQueary didn't make a report to his department.

"He didn't come to State College police. The crime happened on campus and we don't have jurisdiction on campus," King said. "We've had no reports (of Sandusky sexually abusing someone) from anybody."

The university also has its own police force, and said they have no record of any police report filed by McQueary.

The staff of the University police force is about 240 with many armed officers. They routinely investigate deaths, sexual assaults, all kinds of crimes on campus, etc. As mentioned previously, they have the same powers as a municipal police force. The University Police had jurisdiction for the 2002 incident because it is alleged to have occurred on their University campus.

According to the various stuff I've read on this, the University Police would be dispatched because the crime occurred in their jurisdiction. If the University Police request assistance, then the PA State Police would enter the case.

No matter who one went to, the University Police were going to get involved if it had been properly reported. They are a legitimate police force and it was within their jurisdiction.