<p>
Probably not do you honestly think Sandusky would hang around until the police arrive? I have no idea * and neither do you* if the poor victim would have stayed with the GA (someone he didnt know) or left with Sandusky.</p>
<p>In what way is it broader? Ohiomom?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Detectives can investigate until the cows come home. But if the D.A. says he’s not going to prosecute, the case is over - unless the detectives can uncover more evidence that causes the D.A. to change his or her mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Any system can be influenced by “pay-offs and favors,” but that does not mean that a failure to prosecute is necessarily the result of such nefarious actions. Prosecutors make decisions not to prosecute crimes all the time, for lots of different reasons. If a prosecutor does not honestly believe there is sufficient evidence to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor is ethically bound to decline to proceed. I’m not saying that was necessarily the situation in this case; but prosecutorial discretion is a necessary part of any criminal justice system.</p>
<p>moonchild, I agree. I have a suspicion this is just the tip of the iceberg. We may never know the whole story.</p>
<p>"In what way is it broader? Ohiomom? "</p>
<p>Regarding who is required to report.</p>
<p>If you can provide the specifics of what the procedure was at the time (2002), that would be helpful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Shocking! It was the governer’s case and he got to serve judgement against Paterno as he, a prosecutor, sees fit overriding the entire juidicial system? And we carry out his sentence on Paterno by piling on. We must have a combined IQ of 50.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The father just accused his son of a perjury. I assume Paterno’s grand jury statement was corrobarted by the son since Paterno was not charged. Not a lawyer here but the son must have said Paterno was telling the truth under the oath. And that’s not true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think you can assume that, Igloo.</p>
<p>jym, I found two posts #732 and #887. I think there are more. I did not find these online, just relaying what I read upthread.</p>
<p>These seem to be two different aspects of the PA code. What I cited was ch 3490 [Pennsylvania</a> Code](<a href=“Pennsylvania Code”>55 Pa. Code Chapter 3490. Protective Services)</p>
<p>The posts you site are from ch 42 of the PA code. Perhaps JHS can put these two parts of the code together for us, and what was in place in 2002.</p>
<p>McQeary’s father is just confirming what McQeary reported to the Grand Jury.</p>
<p>jym626’s reg is the current reg in Pennsylvania, but it addresses how you make a report, not when a report is required. It doesn’t expand on the definition of who must report what, which is dealt with in the statutes discussed earlier. What this means is not different from what anyone has said – if this incident was covered by the law, they had a duty to report it, no matter what they believed to be the real facts. It didn’t matter whether it was rape, fondling, or whatever. If McQueary was reporting possible abuse – and he clearly was – and if the child was in Penn State’s care – which he probably wasn’t, but people can disagree – they had a duty to report. It was probably Schultz’s duty.</p>
<p>Igloo: The governor hasn’t gotten to “serve judgment” on Paterno, overriding the entire judicial system. He got to fire him from a job because he convinced a majority of the trustees that was the right thing to do. That doesn’t send him to prison, take away his right to vote, or any other type of criminal sanction. It doesn’t even stop him from getting paid, as long as he didn’t violate his contract. It just keeps him from representing Penn State on the sidelines of a football game or in the living room of recruits.</p>
<p>As for criminal sanctions . . . so far NO ONE is pursuing those against Paterno. He is getting a free pass, unlike his minion-bosses who ARE being prosecuted. All of you people whining about how no one is getting after Curley and Schultz should remember that the government is trying to put them, not Paterno, in prison.</p>
<p>Hearing this from the mother of victim #1 is just heartbreaking:</p>
<p>Her boy would act out violently to intentionally become grounded and avoid seeing Sandusky. And the boy’s own words, '‘Well, I didn’t know what to do … you just can’t tell Jerry no.’" </p>
<p>It’s astounding that students actually left the school property with Jerry without the parents’ knowledge/consent.</p>
<p>People keep keep saying that the “police” would call CPS. But Schultz effectively WAS the police, and he certainly didn’t. He didn’t even bring it to the attention of his police underlings, as far as we can tell.</p>
<p>But say Paterno had side-stepped the university hierarchy and called the police directly in 2002. Those “police” reported to Schultz. The DA and police–apparently NOT the PSU police-- who got involved in 1998 didn’t prosecute Sandusky, even though they HEARD HIM on the phone ADMITTING inappropriate behavior. Why not? For that matter, did they call CPS then? If so, what did CPS do? Why didn’t THEY step in in 1998? What, if they were even notified, did they do to safeguard the children in Sandusky’s charity and family? What reason is there to expect that they would have prosecuted Sandusky in 2002, or that CPS would have acted then? They apparently didn’t before.</p>
<p>Then we have the former AG/now-governor. Did he sit on the investigation until he was safely elected? He would never have been elected if he had had the moral courage to land a bomb on the beloved football program. Or was he just carefully building a case that would stand up, given the power and popularity of the target? How many more kids were victimized while he waited? </p>
<p>The whole thing is enormously frustrating. One might despair. But is the answer to buy into the idea that Joe Paterno had god-like powers and lay it all at HIS door…bay for the blood of Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary…even though they were only two people at PSU who apparently did ANYTHING.</p>
<p>BTW, on the subject of what the GA witnessed and what it might have been…read up a bit more on the sexual practices of the Ancient Greeks. It was not necessary anal penetration. I hope not.</p>
<p>Thanks, JHS. The code cited dates back to the mid '80s.
So the buck stops with Schultz. Makes sense.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is our very unique US culture where college sports represent a multimillion dollar business. European friends of mine are really puzzled by that: “Attending a university should be about academics, not about sports”.</p>
<p>Many people I know (who are not interested in sports) had never heard of Penn State until now. Many others knew that it is a household name because of the sports program and nothing else. Now, to make matters worse, they will never remember the school from the “great academics” some posters like to mention, but from this great scandal.</p>
<p>The stigma is going to be difficult to overcome. Penn State is not Duke, nor Michigan, etc. And the scandal does not even compare to anything else that has ever happened in Higher Education.</p>
<p>A Florida jury just awarded a $100 million award to a 42 yo victim of sexual abuse by a local catholic priest who is already in jail. Experts are stating that the award is more symbolic than anything (the priest does not have a penny) BUT that it has established a legal precedent.</p>
<p>Penn State is probably going to fight the dozens of lawsuits that are coming its way. This is going to drag even more. And we still do not know how many victims are going to come out…</p>
<p>As a coach of highnschool boys, wouldn’t he have an obligation to report his suspicions? And as the supervisor of staff that worked with minor he would also be required to directly report to cps</p>
<p>Also, if mcqueary saw Sandusky raping a woman or young girl, are some of you saying if was so shocked he would run and call daddy? </p>
<p>Sandusky ran summer youth camps on Penn state campuuss for year and year, overnight camps</p>
<p>With summer camps with minors campus for over 36 years, it would seem all coaches would be required to report ll allegations of abuse, no matter how vague</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am amazed by the Paterno apologists who continue to emphasize that we haven’t heard all the evidence - in spite of the copious amount of evidence we HAVE heard - yet are willing to speculate about the motives of the man who initiated the investigation, motives about which there is no evidence at all on the table.</p>
<p>News flash: grand jury investigations take time.</p>
<p>And Texas is investigating Sandusky for sexual abuse on a child during the 1999 Alamo Bowl.That could be huge, not only because of how tough Texas is, but also taking a minor across State lines for a purpose like that…(is there such a thing?)</p>