<p>Ethical adults do not riot, not the in morning nor noon nor night, when a coach who failed to do the right thing in a case of child rape is fired. </p>
<p>There is no excuse. There is no “however” or “but”. The vast majority of Penn State students did not riot. Lame attempts to point to the hour of the day is an excuse and it does not fly.</p>
<p>
jym – I follow your speculation, but Curley and Schultz couldn’t/shouldn’t expect Second Mile’s admin to report to CPS without knowing for sure if the child was one of the boys from that organization.</p>
<p>
That is a good point, tutu. But, if they wanted to pass the buck and dump it in the lap of a licensed professional who would have to report even if it was not one of their organization’s kids (since the statute says that if they have resaon to believe a child is being abused they have to report) then its a slick (albeit unkind) way of passing the buck. I have absolutely no clue if thye thought or planned this. Merely hypothesizing. But it is not outside the realm of possibility for them to be advised “tell this to Dr. Raykovitz. He needs to know for sure, and then he, as a licensed psychologist, will be the one who is obligated to report it to DCS”. Merely congecture, but not outside the realm of believability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think one should put words in McQueary’s father’s mouth either. But we’re all parents here. Quiz time!</p>
<p>Your son calls you, distraught, saying he just witnessed a man he knows raping a 10-year-old in the shower. You say, “I hope you didn’t kill him when you separated them!” He says he did nothing and walked away. You say:</p>
<p>(A) “Son, I’m disappointed you screwed up, but I still love you. The phone number you’re looking for is 9-1-1. Hang up right now and call.”</p>
<p>(B)" Oh dear, better tell your boss tomorrow morning."</p>
<p>If you picked (B), congratulations! You are… Penn State. Is there anyone here who would pick (B)? I didn’t think so.</p>
<p>(Edited to fix screwup)</p>
<p>Hope not. That’s kind of low at this point. In fact, that post is in poor taste if you don’t mind me saying so. There’s so much pain and regrets to go around, starting from the victims, that this incident brought out. I don’t see much point to add more.</p>
<p>“jym – I follow your speculation, but Curley and Schultz couldn’t/shouldn’t expect Second Mile’s admin to report to CPS without knowing for sure if the child was one of the boys from that organization.”</p>
<p>Curley and/or Schultz had a responsibility to report.</p>
<p>Second Miles Adm actually would have had an obligation to report as well because an Administrator working with children is obligated to report even suspicion and Sandusky was part of their organization with access to these kids.</p>
<p>Which post are you referring to, Igloo? Its hard to follow the bouncing ball around here.</p>
<p>Oh, I missed that, Cardinal Fang.
Well, I did not put words in his mouth, I very clearly said that I could " imagine" him saying…there is clearly a difference. Don’t take offense.</p>
<p>Anyway, what the father actually said was more along the lines of “leave the building and come home” = ??</p>
<p>okay!!!</p>
<p>and McQueary actually went into his graduate assistant office and made the phone call to his father.</p>
<p>But ohiomom, if , perchance, the admin at Second Mile was led to believe that it had already been reported, they would not be required to re-report the same incident. So what is unknown is who told the administration at Second Mile (Curley/Schultz), or the attorney, Wendell Courtney, who represents both PSU and Second Mile.</p>
<p>Yes, the problem is if everyone thought the other reported, fine, but no one follows up? Appears to be cover up. Sweep it under the rug. And the thing is the guy’s with kids all the time. No follow up is inexcusable.</p>
<p>Curley testified that he told Raykowitz (Second Mile) as well as Spanier what McQueary conveyed to him. Page 8 of Grand Jury report.</p>
<p>Yes, that goes without say. The indictment says Schultz, who oversaw the Univ. Police did not eport the incident to his own agency, nor did he try to collect further information. It goes on to say that Spanier acknowledged that Curley and Shultz had not indicated any plan to report the matter to any law enforcement authority. Therein, IMO, is where the fault lies.</p>
<p>** edited in response to above edited post**</p>
<p>Yes Curley said he told Spanier and second MIle, but did not tell his own police dept (pg. 10)</p>
<p>So, as I play sleuth in my head, either ther was a purposeful attempt to dump the responsibility of reporting onto Raykovitz, they could tellhim of teh incident. Its also possible that they told him, if asked if it had been reported, that they said soemthing like “the authorities are aware of the situation” or “it is beig taken caree of” that might lead Raykovitz to believe it had been reported, and hence it was all kept quiet. Again, its all speculative. Just mulling over the possibilities.</p>
<p>To clarify, was Courtney both counsel to PSU and Second Mile at the time this occurred? If so, could he try to claim attorney-client priviledge and keep it all quiet that way? Regardless, none of it passes the smell test. I believe the obligation to report supercedes the attorney-client priviledge, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to claim otherwise.</p>
<p>I meant 1684.</p>
<p>to answer the quiz, I may have picked B. I wouldn’t know if I would always choose the right thing. I think I am honoable most of the time but I wouldn’t be surprised if I choose less so to save my bottom given chance. So far, I am lucky and have not been tested.</p>
<p>Thanks igloo. I asked that my post 1685 be deleted since Cardinal corrected teh typo that my post references. It may be clearer if my post is removed.</p>
<p>And I tried to edit my post # 1692 but ran out of time. Pgs 9-10 of the indictment confirm who Curley said he told, which did not include his own police dept.</p>
<p>How would McQueary follow up on this? Does he ask Paterno or Curley or Spanier who assure him its being handled, or does he call dept of Cldns services and leave a message on a voicemail (as per my experience) or by chance gets a live person who asks him if he was the one to make the report, and when he says no, tell him its confidential and they can’t give out any information?</p>
<p>chocoholic, I fail to understand your point regarding DeNunzio.</p>
<p>He reported the incident to protective services. He attempted to follow up with them and got nowhere. What is your accusation? He reported the abuse. The mother talked to the coach and the principal, who brought it to him. Are you trying to accuse him of malfeasance because he didn’t also interview the mother? What would have been the point of that? What would it accomplish? She needed to be interviewed by the authorities in a position to investigate the charges and do something about it. His role was to IMFORM THE AUTHORITIES, which he did. Is there something WRONG with his describing the incident described to him as “touching”? No one has claimed that Sandusky anally raped the boy on the wrestling mats.</p>
<p>It seems clear that DiNunzio acted properly, and that you may be mixing up the various incidents.</p>
<p>If I am repeating something,I apologize. This thread has become a carousel. And I’m jumping on again…</p>
<p>Does it not make sense that McQ knew that it had not been handled when he was not called upon by the police to make an official statement? If Curley had reported it, then the police would have wanted to speak directly with the original source. </p>
<p>Also, I was willing to appreciate McQs reaction to what he saw. Not condone, just appreciate. But I heard yesterday that he continued to associate with Sandusky, playing golf and such. THAT I do not understand.</p>
<p>“How would McQueary follow up on this? Does he ask Paterno or Curley or Spanier who assure him its being handled, or does he call dept of Cldns services and leave a message on a voicemail (as per my experience) or by chance gets a live person who asks him if he was the one to make the report, and when he says no, tell him its confidential and they can’t give out any information?”</p>
<p>Anyone who wanted to follow up would simply have to ask if there was a report. I know if I was a witness to THAT and I saw Sandusky around (and with boys) I would find out what ever happened. I think it states in Grand Jury report is was not spoken of again.</p>
<p>Good point, rom: I would have wondered why I was never questioned by police or Dept. of Child Services. That is telling in itself. That’s dumb of me, I guess McQueary would know there was no investigation, he was never questioned.</p>
<p>If we believe McQueary, he KNEW Sandusky was a child-rapist, without a shadow of a doubt, because he saw Sandusky raping a child. And he KNEW that Sandusky hadn’t been imprisoned. He couldn’t possibly have thought that the incident had been fully investigated and Sandusky cleared, because full investigation would necessarily have involved someone interviewing him, which no one had done.</p>
<p>What was he thinking when he saw Sandusky showing up with child after child at the various Penn State events for the next nine years? I can understand him not stopping the initial rape-- he should have, but in the shock of the moment lots of people’s brains freeze up-- but what was he thinking five years later when Sandusky showed up with yet another ten-year-old boy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the notion that “he might have thought it had been handled” is silly. He witnessed what he KNEW was a terrible crime. And then, he must have noticed that the perpetrator was walking around a free man for 9 more years. How could anyone think that the matter had been “handled”? </p>
<p>And the same applies to Paterno. At some point, these men had to know that they had an absolute duty to get Sandusky off the streets. If the local cops wouldn’t handle it, they could have called CPS, the state police, the feds. They shouldn’t have rested until it truly WAS handled.</p>