Penn State Sandusky scandal

Parent Cafe
9121

<p>greenbutton–thanks for posting. I don’t really get their point. first, an investigation is meant to uncover what occurred, it’s purpose is not to help the victims, that comes from families, therapists, etc. I do agree it is wrong for any involved in covering these awful cases to theorize about lives completely ruined. this is terribly negative and harms victims. Victims become survivors every day and can go on to live full, productive lives, especially when others take responsibility. Paterno at least acknowledged he should have done more. That is healing to victims. the other PSU “leaders” have done nothing of the sort.</p>

<p>just don’t see how identifying possible conspiracy to not report would hurt or silence victims. and pointing out what the predator does to groom their victims is unrelated to looking at what others’ responsibility is in recognizing and reporting abuse. I see the language they are using as manipulative, attempting to redirect attention and feigning desire to support the victims. This is all about supporting themselves.</p>

<p>There was no attempt on anyone’s part at PSU, McQueary included, to identify or locate that child who was known to have been abused.</p>

9122

<p>I think what the FBI-trained investigator is attempting to say is the prevailing societal attitude that a conspiracy must exist in order for an abuser to succeed is incorrect. Believing that makes it easier for abusers to succeed, because we are looking for collusion and cooperation and in its absence conclude there is no possibility of abuse. It makes the victims seem like they are cooperating in the same subtle way battered women were once “blamed” subtly for not leaving their abusers. i.e., if I am being abused, and no big conspiracy is pressuring me to submit, why would I not contact authorities? </p>

<p>Whether or not that opinion works towards exonerating any parties or not, I still found it a perspective worth repeating.</p>

9123

<p>“the prevailing societal attitude that a conspiracy must exist in order for an abuser to succeed is incorrect”</p>

<p>I am unaware that this is a prevailing societal attitude. They are claiming this as the reason the Freeh report was incorrect. It appears they are mixing issues. I would agree that there is not always conspiracy, thus the absence of such conspiracy would not in any way indicate victims are not to be believed. but this is a strange way to exonerate Paterno? Why would the absence of a conspiracy make victims seem like they are cooperating? a conspiracy is only an additional element in large scale cases like PSU or the Catholic Church. </p>

<p>Victims not coming forward is often due to their having been threatened, which was true in this awful case.</p>

9124

<p>

I’m not sure I would put it this way, but it’s certainly the case that this thread is full of statements about what various players in this saga “must have” known.</p>

9125

<p>There is a wide gap between believing there was a conspiracy to cover this up or even to facilitate Sandusky vs thinking others were taking action vs believing it was unimaginable that someone known and respected in the community could be a molester. If we could ever truly determine the reason the 5 people involved did what they did or did not do that would be important to know.</p>

9126

<p>as a health professional in the state of Florida, I was just taking a CE class in medical errors and it stated;</p>

<p>“Coming in the wake of the Penn State scandal, the new law also stipulates that colleges and universities that “knowingly and willfully” fail to report suspected child abuse, abandonment or neglect — or prevent another person from doing so — now face fines of up to $1 million for each incident.”</p>

<p>so with this new law in Florida a “conspiracy” would not have to be proven, only universities knowingly and willfully failing to report. looking at PSU it certainly seems that much was proven by the Freeh report.</p>

9127

<p>Personally, I find the Paterno family’s whitewash campaign offensive and offputting. And their effort to hide behind the victims, essentially claiming that any criticism directed at JoePa or anyone else other than Sandusky for their role in this matter is somehow hurtful to and silencing of the victims, is downright slimy and disgusting.</p>

9128

<p>

</p>

<p>There is no point to come forward where the evidence that the people in charge will do everything in their power to dismiss the cases. Something that was undeniably the case at PSU. </p>

<p>In the end, the people who should share the blame for this sordid affair still cling the notion that they did not do anything wrong. Why anyone might be interested in hearing what Mrs. Paterno has to say is baffling, except if it would have been a long admission of guilt and an unrestricted display of contrition. </p>

<p>Those people have not earned anyone’s forgiveness. Not that they care a bit about it!</p>

9129

<p>

Sorry to beat this old drum, but nothing is “proven” by a report, whether it’s Freeh’s or the grand jury’s. The only thing proven so far is Sandusky’s guilt.</p>

9130

<p>are you suggesting that the Penn State officials didn’t knowingly and willfully fail to report?</p>

9131

<p>

As I and others explained hundreds of pages back, there is a strong argument that no Penn State official had a legal obligation to report anything. I suspect that they may have even had advice of counsel that they didn’t have to report. Obviously, they chose not to report, and a law making it clear that they must report might have made them behave differently.</p>

<p>But even a law punishing a person for willfully and knowingly failing to report will only be relevant to situations where the person has a legal obligation to report.</p>

9132

<p>the law I reference is the new law in Florida, which I stated. The law requires universities to report, so I imagine administrators of universities would recognize that and act accordingly</p>

<p>yes, the law was unclear in Pa, and they clearly used that and opted to not report. I agree they likely consulted with their counsel.</p>

<p>I was simply pointing out that they did knowingly and willfully fail to report, which was borne out by the Freeh report. I was commenting on the fact that even without a conspiracy, with this new law a university could be held accountable.</p>

9133

<p>Yes, if they had been required to report, they could now be penalized for failing to report. I’d have to see the Florida law to see how knowingly and willfully are defined–in some cases, that means that somebody must have known there was a legal obligation to report–in others, it may mean that somebody knew the facts that gave rise to the obligation to report, even if they didn’t actually know of the legal obligation.</p>

9134

<p>[Y</a>! SPORTS](<a href=“Paterno family report does little to diminish belief coach knew of first Sandusky allegation”>Paterno family report does little to diminish belief coach knew of first Sandusky allegation)</p>

<p>"No one gets innocently accused of fondling boys twice – three years apart.</p>

<p>The Freeh Report concluded that Paterno knew of the 1998 investigation based on a number of items. There was the common-sense argument that little happened inside Penn State football without JoePa’s knowledge, and a serious police investigation into his current defensive coordinator would never be kept from him. Later, there were Paterno’s handwritten notes on Sandusky’s retirement agreement where he agrees with Sandusky being allowed to use Penn State workout facilities, but writes “No to 2nd Mile [kids]. Liability problem,” referencing the Second Mile children’s charity Sandusky operated.</p>

<p>Then, most specifically, there were two email chains that suggested Paterno was briefed on the 1998 incident. They included Curley, Schultz and Spanier. Paterno never used email, although his secretary maintained an account for him.</p>

<p>One email, dated May 5, 1998, came from Curley and read, “I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks.”</p>

<p>Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison. (AP)</p>

<p>The next day Schultz emailed back with the subject line “Re: Joe Paterno” and wrote, “Will do. Since we talked tonight I’ve learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday.”</p>

<p>There is a later second email chain that includes the campus director of police under the subject line “Re: Jerry.” It deals with numerous Sandusky developments, including him eventually being cleared of charges.</p>

<p>One May 13 email from Curley to the group reads: “Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands.”</p>

<p>The Freeh report concluded that the “coach” in the aforementioned emails was Joe Paterno. “The reference to Coach is believed to be Paterno,” Freeh, the one-time director of the FBI, wrote."</p>

<p>To date, no one has yet “followed the money”.</p>

9135

<p>

</p>

<h2>Actually there is a mandatory reporting law for Pennsylvania that is broad in scope and includes public institutions and schools. As a mandatory reporter myself, we’re told that there are ramifications to us for NOT reporting suspected (key word suspected) abuse. It is a much lower standard than a criminal standard or such… Even if they did NOT have had a legal obligation to report, they certainly had a moral obligation to not facilitate or turn a blind eye by allowing Sandusky to continue to use the athletic facilitates for a decade after the McQueary incident. In the PA code, the ‘shall’ term makes it mandatory in nature to report.</h2>

<p>[049</a> Pa. Code §<em>42.42.</em>Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.](<a href=“Pennsylvania Code”>49 Pa. Code § 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.)
§ 42.42. Suspected child abuse—mandated reporting requirements.
(a) General rule. Under 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 (relating to persons required to report suspected child abuse), licensees who, in the course of the employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made to the Department of Public Welfare when they have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of their professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse. </p>

<h2> (b) Staff members of public or private agencies, institutions and facilities</h2>

9136

<p>Jandjdad–also a mandatory reporter and with that understanding we recognize that we need to report ‘suspected abuse’. It is shameful that these leaders hearing of actual abuse did not see this as their responsibility and clearly did not consider the impact of their choice on future victims, only themselves.</p>

<p>Hunt–wondering, are you saying that one must be aware of the legal obligation to report in order to report? if one is a mandated reporter then one is required to understand the laws that relate to their profession. Spanier’s comment below certainly appears to reveal he had an understanding of the need to report;</p>

<p>"President Spanier responded two hours later, writing the following:</p>

<p>“I am supportive. The only downside for us is if the message isn’t “heard” and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it. But that can be assessed down the road.”</p>

<p>laws aside, from a crisis management perspective, when a university official/president recognizes a situation that presents risk to damage said university/organization there is a responsibility to demonstrate judgment about said risk and take appropriate action to protect their own institution. they failed miserably at that alone.</p>

9137

<p>I don’t want to rehash this–you can look up my old posts if you like–but I think it’s most likely from a legal point of view that the Penn State officials were not mandatory reporters with respect to the incident that McQueary reported to them. No one should read into that statement anything about what their moral obligations were, or what their legal obligations should have been. I suspect they called their lawyers and the lawyers told them they didn’t have to report under the circumstances. So they didn’t. I know that some of them have been charged with failure to report. What has happened, if anything, with respect to those charges?</p>

<p>I just looked it up–they’re still pending, but it looks like they’ll have to be dropped. The prosecutors changed the date of the shower incident from 2002 to 2001, and the failure to report law has a 10-year statute of limitations. That will be a convenient way to leave unanswered the question of whether they were legally obligated to report.</p>

9138

<p>Sandusky is appealing his conviction again:</p>

<p>[Sandusky</a> appeals child sex conviction one more time | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-usa-pennstate-idUSBRE91K0WO20130221]Sandusky”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/21/us-usa-pennstate-idUSBRE91K0WO20130221)</p>

<p>Does he really think he’ll get the verdicts overturned? Or is Amendola just milking his client for more attorney’s fees?</p>

9139

<p>Janesmith, it is possibly if the i’s and t’s are not technically dotted and crossed. In a regular trial, especially a high profile one like this, a media circus, a lot of outside factors and emotion come into play. Upon appeal, many times it comes down to a reading of the fact as presented in court, with the law being applied to them No side show distractions, and more anonymity for the judges who are studying the transcripts. So, yes there is that chance.</p>

<p>A friend of mine who is an attorney has been going on a personal vendetta for years. She knew she would lose in court due to precedence and some other factor but felt that she had a good shot on appeals and did win that way. Her case and the overturning of the primary verdict made the NY state law journals as it was such an unusual outcome, unusual in that few people have the money, time and persistence to carry things that far on a matter like hers.</p>

9140

<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-crime-sandusky-idUSBRE91R03U20130228[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-crime-sandusky-idUSBRE91R03U20130228&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;