<p>Ignatius–it is hard to imagine that legal counsel was consulted given the actions they chose, however I believe it has been reported to be the case.</p>
<p>Wendell Courtney–The former general counsel for Penn State University is also the longtime lawyer for Sandusky’s charity foundation, The Second Mile. He was working for both organizations when, according to Schultz, he reviewed the 1998 university police report about Sandusky’s behavior with boys.</p>
<p>I asked the question before, can an attorney be asked to testify as to what he knew or is that privileged information?</p>
<p>Courtney’s statement “I was never made aware of the alleged incidents of sexual misconduct regarding Sandusky until I read about them in the AG’s presentment,” Courtney said. When pressed, however, he said he became aware in 2009 that a report of possible misconduct by Sandusky with a boy had been made to Clinton County authorities and was being investigated.</p>
<p>Courtney’s denial of any awareness was given little credence by a spokesman for the Attorney General:
He [Courtney] said he did not begin to represent The Second Mile until early 2009 and withdrew as the organization’s counsel on Monday, after two top Penn State officials were charged with perjury in connection with allegations that Mr. Sandusky sexually abused eight children.
Nils Frederiksen, spokesman for Attorney General Linda Kelly, dismissed Mr. Courtney’s claim.</p>
<p>“It’s clear from the findings of the grand jury that Mr. Courtney had direct dealings with both Penn State and The Second Mile and he had knowledge and was aware of the 1998 incident,” he said.</p>
<p>After the 1998 incident, they probably had a clue as how to handle the subsequent activities. Don’t ask for details. Don’t get more information. Protect yourselves.</p>
<p>So while they may or may not have asked for legal opinions specifically in the mcqueary incident, they very likely had other side conversations of what if. These are very savvy men who knew howmto protect themselves and their almighty football program. </p>
<p>So when the time came they knew tom not ask anymore questions. To shut down further inquiries, how to share their version of the truth.</p>
<p>The more I read, the sicker I feel. Was there not ONE person who knew or suspected what Sandusky was doing who had the guts to report it? Not one person who put the kids first? Even McQueary, after having walked in on it, didn’t follow up on it. If I had walked in on that scene, and the man was not put into prison within a week of my conveying the information, I would want to know why.<br>
What did McQueary think (or the rest of the pack of enablers for that matter) when they saw Sandusky at games, etc. Didn’t any of them have a problem with the fact that he was walking the streets? Evil.</p>
You are forgetting how powerful these people are (were). What if you knew you would most likely lose your job and (because of how powerful JoePa was) probably never get work in your field again? That you would be lucky if you could move to Podunk and pump gas? For something you were maybe not 100% certain of? Not trying to defend them, but it’s more difficult than it looks to know what you or I would have done.</p>
<p>As a teacher, we could report but weren’t necessarily privy to the details of any follow-up, i.e., confidential. It was not out of the realm of normal to report suspected abuse (sexual) and then it seem like nothing happened. Answers varied as to why - when given at all - but it seemed so often that the resolution remained unsatisfactory. Sad, sad, sad.</p>
<p>Quite the opposite. I’m saying that the attorneys found the fine line between legality and skeeviness, and kept their clients just this side of it. That was their job, and they were largely successful. It wasn’t their job to provide PSU officials with a moral compass. In fact, that was the crux of 200+ pages of this thread when the story first broke: Few argued that Paterno et al committed a crime. But was that a high enough standard?</p>
<p>Sylvan, I hear what you are saying and I guess that would have an impact on me IF there was any doubt in my mind that a child had suffered abuse. One could rationalize that a case of suspected abuse had been investigated and deemed unfounded or not enough evidence or a misunderstanding…whatever. And yes, that happens in schools when a teacher has a suspicion, reports it and is not privy to the results of the investigation.</p>
<p>But…I HOPE that if I walked in on a naked, grown man in a shower with a child, heard flesh on flesh slapping sounds and saw them pressed together with the child’s hands on the wall and the man embracing him from behind…I HOPE that I would have an issue with that grown man walking the streets and being involved with a children’s organization.</p>
<p>I have said, in past posts that I kinda get why McQueary left the locker room and went upstairs without intervening. I guess we can never truly predict what our spontaneous reaction would be in any situation. It’ possible that he needed to think, process, recover from the shock, whatever. But later, after the initial shock wears off…how do you reconcile what you saw in that shower with that man going about his business without any consequences? How do YOU go about YOUR business as if nothing happened?</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. McQueary and others did their minimum legal duty, and then turned a blind eye to suffering children. Criminal? Probably not. Honorable/moral/ethical? All that cr*p they spout about integrity? They failed that test on an epic scale.</p>
<p>Do you think the fact that football is such a male-dominated culture had an impact here? Are women more attuned to being hyper-protective of kids in a way that men aren’t socialized to be?</p>
<p>gosh, zoosermom, are you prepared from the flames of people who think football is sacred and can’t be questioned? We have to report suspected abuse in VT too. At least some people in this case did report to someone.</p>
<p>bluejay, it was the law at PSU as well. McQueary’s legal responsibility was to report it to his supervisor, which he did. The higher-ups were required to report it to law enforcement, which they did when they reported to PSU police – the police force most closely associated with the university, most immersed in the university culture, and BTW on the university payroll. Everyone fulfilled their minimum legal obligations. </p>
<p>The question is: Was it enough to do the legal minimum? Many, many people knew this man was a predator, and those people watched as he remained on the loose for years. Personally, I think that “I did what I had to do, and no more” just isn’t quite good enough when children are in danger.</p>
<p>So they reported it to WHO THEY HAD TO REPORT IT TO.</p>
<p>Okay, so they reported it to a group “on their payroll.” Maybe it’s different in Sacramento, but the local city police would be on the taxpayer’s payroll, the state police would be on the taxpayer’s payroll, the FBI would be on the taxpayer’s payroll. </p>
<p>They gotta report it to someone “on the payroll!”</p>
<p>Serious question here — for some people, the fact that it involves a sports coach seems to make it worse. There is a certain outrage , a resentment that the football program was protected. So, my question is how would we react if this were the engineering dean at some LAC or a Pulitzer winning journalism prof at some high-profile school (I’m purposely trying to avoid names here since this is just for the mental exercise) and their admins circled the wagons to protect those programs and keep the “brand” away from scandal? Would we feel as angry? Why? or Why not? Beyond the obvious – coaches are mentors in whom we place a lot of trust —. And we can agree that the strategy of circling the wagons around the program, instead of victims, is the most morally bankrupt idea ever. But would the kind of program matter? Would we feel differently? Would the press?</p>
<p>imho, we don’t need 4,000 more posts to agree that people should have done more. I do think that the level of outrage at those who didn’t ring the alarm loudly enough (not the admins, whose inaction rises to criminal charges) does nothing to encourage future reporting , probably the opposite is true.</p>
<p>interesting question gb. for me the fact that Sandusky plied the boys with PSU access to games, activities and events while the admin and many others looked the other way makes it somewhat unique. In other words, Sandusky’s pass to use the showers, games etc. made him that much more of a pillar of the community type, which made parents trust him, kids idolize him. His exploitation of PSU was wrapped up in his abuse of the boys. but I think I’d have the same reaction if it happened in a different setting. Certainly have the same reaction to the sexual abuse and coverup within the Catholic Church.</p>
<p>wondering why you think the outrage at those who didn’t report would not encourage future reporting? I don’t see that. I think we have to ask questions as parents when something just doesn’t seem right, as I did when my son’s kindergarten teacher had her boyfriend in the classroom daily. just didn’t seem right to me. nothing happened that I ever heard, but then again I asked questions, voiced my concern, so the principal began watching.
That’s not an example of need to report of course, more of an example of listening to your own intuition and using one’s power as a parent to express concern.</p>
<p>when I watch the TV show, what would YOU do, it is heartwarming to see people stop a “drunk parent” from permitting a 9 yr old to drive a car. I hope this show is one avenue to teach all of us that we can make a difference when we see something that may harm another. I hope by bringing this to light and really talking about it makes us all more prepared to act when needed.</p>
<p>I’m just not that surprised that people “knew” something was wrong and didn’t report it. Lots of families have had funny uncles, and it would kill grandma if he went to jail. How about women whose new husbands have the hots for their step daughters? They can rationalize it does no good to the child to lose their lifestyle. I see Penn State as a type of family, and it becomes way more complicated in that context. I believe the enablers either don’t see sexual molestation as a violent crime, or they’re in denial as to the permanent harm done to the victims. It has got to be easier to report this kind of crime when one has nothing at stake.</p>
Maybe. I mean women might be more apt to report suspected abuse and may be more apt to recognize suspicious behavior, grooming, etc. Woman may also be less reluctant to report, I don’t know.</p>
<p>But I don’t think it takes someone who is hyper-protective of children to recognize and report a rape that is happening right in front of their eyes. I just can’t believe that anyone would report it to their supervisor and never follow up on what happened as a result and why nothing ever really did happen as a result. If I saw a child being raped and reported it to my supervisor (have to suspend my reality here and pretend that I wouldn’t have tackled the guy and called the police on the spot), and then saw that he was still living his life, going to work, participating in activities, I would have wanted to know WHY! What had been done about the fact that he was witnessed raping a child? Its not the same as a situation where a teacher suspects abuse, reports it and then never knows whether anything came of it.</p>
<p>And yes, I’m sure every state has mandated reporting laws for teachers, day care providers, etc.</p>
<p>Hummm… as a teacher, we are mandated to report these things. But, I doubt the PSU football managers had to go to THAT kind of class. In fact, I picture these husky guys not at all knowing how to deal with unfamiliar 10 year olds that Sandusky brought in, much less have empathy for them.</p>