<p>geeps, I don’t agree with you about a lot of things, but I agree with you about this. I don’t get it. Some people are acting like what Paterno admittedly knew was nothing. A middle-aged naked man engages in inappropriate behavior in the shower with a little boy? Perhaps sexual? What other kind of inappropriate behavior could it have been?</p>
<p>The whole thing is horrifying, and I don’t have much room left in my heart for sympathy for anyone involved but the children who were victimized. Who, I think, are very courageous in coming forward now, as many are apparently beginning to do. It isn’t so easy, I’m sure, even years later. This certainly isn’t about me, but I was sexually abused by an authority figure – in my case, an endocrinologist I was sent to because I wasn’t growing or showing any signs of approaching adolescence – over a period of years from the time I was 11 until I was 14 or 15. And I was too embarrassed and ashamed to tell a soul about it (I certainly didn’t report it) for another 20 years or so. I still feel incredibly stupid for “allowing” it to happen based on his telling me that what was going on was all part of the examination. Maybe if I’d been born 20 years later it all would have been obvious to me, but it wasn’t.</p>
That is not a fully accurate statement of what the statute says, though. As JHS noted, the minor involved here was not a Penn State student or (as far as we can tell) involved in any Penn State program. I’m sure the prosecutors will try to argue that the statute applies anyway, but it would be a very expansive reading.</p>
<p>“The timing is odd that the grand jury has been investigating for 3 years and they waited till Paterno broke the winning record to announce this.
Similar to Ohio State waited after bowl game to suspend those players. except in this case every day you wait, more kids are exposed to danger.
PSU should get the harshest punishment by NCAA and Big10.”</p>
<p>I was thinking the exact same thing! Something is rotten in the State (err Commonwealth) of Pennsylvania. :-(</p>
<p>Donna _ I bleive many of you are misreading what we are saying. We are saying until all the information is available we will hold our opinion on Paterno. I agree Paterno was aware that Sandusky acted inappropriately with a child in 2002 and he reported it. We do not know what happened after that. Do you know if Paterno was told if it was investigated and like the 1998 incident not able to be prosecuted? Do you know who reported the 2002 incident to the DA? Again Paterno may be deserving of criticsm but there is so much more we need to know before I condemn the man.</p>
<p>It is all over the news… nationwide. I can’t believe so many adults would stand by while children are being victimized. To the students that are rioting: Wake up and smell the coffee… there is more to life than Football. I do feel bad for the institution but seriously riots to protect Paterno over this? Where are we as a nation if we can’t protect the youngest and most vulnerable? Imagine your younger brother or child being molested and a 28 year old LEAVES? Leaves? WOW.</p>
<p>Children are obviously not Penn State students but they are there on campus on an event or business that is sanctioned by the school, otherwise, these charity events are held there illegally and are trespassing. Expansive? I don’t know. From all the wording I have read, unless someone can convince me otherwise, it is a pretty clear cut violation.</p>
<p>And after knowing what happen in 2002, all the officials involved continue to look away and let this charity operates on campus for almost a decade. Seriously, legal aside, there is something very wrong with this.</p>
<p>Whether or not Paterno is or is not culpable in the Sandusky affair - the incredibly arrogant insubordination of the man in releasing a statement to the media telling the Board of Trustees that it had no business discussing his employment should have been enough to get him fired, in and of itself.</p>
Actually igloo, that is untrue. Paterno apparently is NOW saying he wasnt informed of the nature and extent of the 2002 incident, but in the grand jury report it states:
<p>Again, to those who wonder what Paterno was told, read the Grand Jury report. It says clearly the graduate assistant saw a child being raped. It then says he told Paterno what he saw. Paterno also testified. If he had testified to something else - like he’d been told it was “fondling” as some commenters have said - the Grand Jury report would have said that. They note that Paterno testified he told the athletic director there was fondling or some other sexual activity. The gap is there for a reason: they were saying what Paterno testified he said, not what Paterno said he was told. </p>
<p>Why read it like this? Because this is a Grand Jury report. It isn’t a paper but a description of what they found in their investigation. A meaningful discrepancy would be included as part of the record. </p>
<p>In Paterno’s weird moral universe, maybe he couldn’t bring himself to say rape of a boy. That’s no excuse. </p>
<p>But beyond that, why are commenters still focusing on what Paterno was told 9 years ago. He had a relationship with this molester until a few weeks ago. He is still listed on the man’s charity. He let him have an office in Paterno’s football department. He apparently remained close friends with a known child molester. That’s not excusable at all. Remember again, he kept up this relationship even after he testified to the Grand Jury, meaning he knew they were investigating his buddy. Odds are extremely good he knew they were looking into more cases of child abuse. They likely asked him about that. You can’t excuse what he’s done over the last 9 years.</p>
<p>You also can’t excuse his pathetic attempts to remain as football coach. His ego is what mattered in the end. His position mattered more to him than boys being raped.</p>
<p>completely agree. Students need to be thinking of the victimes. Not “one more game”. Life is not a game. I hope the parents of these kids talk to them about this.</p>
<p>"(i) Persons who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession come into contact with children and have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse." </p>
<p>None of the victims came before Paterno or any of the Penn State administrators “in their profesion or official capacity.” none of them were students at Penn State. They are all alleged to have been participants in the non-profit Second Mile organization.</p>
<p>These guys were all fired (or forced to step aside) not because they broke the required Reporting law, but because they failed to do everything they could have done to save the victim and ensure that there would not be future victims. </p>
<p>The whole think stinks and the Trustees know that they will never get the university back to where it needs to be without hitting Control+Alt.+DELETE.</p>
<p>Lergnom - that is correct. I really am not concerned with the legal aspects of this - except for the conviction of Sandusky. It is the continued association with Sandusky by Penn State, Paterno and administrators when they were aware of 3 reported incidents.</p>
<p>“Do you know who reported the 2002 incident to the DA?”</p>
<p>It came to the attention of a local high school in 2008 and THEY immediately reported it as they should have and as they are required to do so by law.</p>
<p>If somebody is accused of something, and denies it, and then is investigated, and the investigation doesn’t result in anything solid, what do you do? We don’t know exactly what the various authorities in this story knew at various points, and what they believed. Clearly, they started from a position of knowing, liking, and trusting Sandusky. Could they have convinced themselves–or could Sandusky have convinced them–that it was all a big misunderstanding? It would sure be interesting to hear more details of what was told to the grand jury. What did they leave out? Did Curley and Schultz confront Sandusky, for example? How firmly did McQueary stick to his story when he was interviewed by Curley and Schultz?
This whole thing is so horrible that I can’t feel too bad about getting rid of all the people who were in charge, because it certainly happened on their watch–but I would like to know more before agreeing with all the vilification.</p>
<p>The law also clearly states that anyone who works for a state institution has an obligation to report anything he/she hears in regard to the abuse of a child. These admintrators worked for Penn state, a state institution.</p>
<p>It’s not just those who work with children, but those who work for the state who hear of the abuse of children. </p>
<p>But, all legality aside, if you worked for me and someone was abusing a kid in the shower in my building, whether or not you were “legally” obligated to call the authorities upon discovering this? I’d fire you if you did not. </p>
That’s not how I read it, if you’re talking about what sopranomom quoted. The provision referring to institutions still includes the phrase “a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity.” I think it’s a big stretch to say that the child in this case is covered by that language. Is there another part of the law you’re referring to?</p>
<p>A child did come before one of the school employee, the grad assistant, by the fact that he directly witnessed the abuse. He reported it to his superior and on up the chain. I am not a lawyer, but that is coming before the officials of the school in my book.</p>
<p>The foregoing is seriously mistaken. The conclusion is unavoidable that there was a “meaningful discrepancy” between McQueary’s testimony and Paterno’s. And people don’t just tell their stories to a grand jury – they answer questions the prosecutors put to them. If the prosecutor wanted to know what Paterno heard McQueary say, he would have – and I’m sure he did – ask Paterno. If Paterno had trouble remembering exactly, the prosecutor would have broken it down into bite-sized, yes/no questions: “Did he tell you that x? Did he tell you that y? Did he tell you that z?”</p>
<p>The AG (whose staff wrote the report) was protecting Paterno by glossing over those differences. Plain and simple. Also, in all probability, trying to preserve Paterno’s cooperation as a witness in the case against Curley and Schultz.</p>
<p>Maybe, under oath, before the grand jury, Paterno answered that he didn’t remember any details of the conversation. If that’s the case, it might explain why he wasn’t accused of perjury. But then it seems like a pretty serious ethical lapse for him to be putting out press releases that say without qualification that he never knew about the specific acts McQueary saw. Either he remembers that McQueary didn’t tell him, or his doesn’t remember whether he ever heard about it; he can’t have it both ways.</p>