<p>
Frankly, Im puzzled by your glee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On one hand, “Until them I’m respectfully reserving judgement until we know more and I would ask everyone else take a step back, a deep breath, and do the same”, but on other hand, “Paterno was clearly the scapegoat in all this”.</p>
<p>It has been several pages where people discussed calmly about several issues and the events. Why do we have to go back and prosecute or exonerate Joe Paterno again right now? This whole thing is hardly about Joe Paterno only, I just can’t stand this characterization again that we are lynching Joe Paterno. I think the apologists should look in the mirror and look at what they are saying and how they are directing the conversations.</p>
<p>LasMa:</p>
<p>Re your question in No. 1816. No, I am sure that McQuery witnessed something terrible and said something about it to Paterno, enough to put Paterno on notice to do much more than he did. However, whether or not McQueary told his father, etc., I don’t know whether that is true, whether that is his best effort to spin not acting earlier, or what. There is a lot of fudging that could be involved in relating this sordid tale.</p>
<p>rocketman08, I’m with you. An acquaintance at church was railroaded by the lynch mob with a false accusation of child molestation. You can’t get your life back when a couple of years later the truth comes out. The report is horrible, but it is a grand jury REPORT of the prosecutors case, not a conviction. I can imagine as may scenarios as other people have imagined, some horrible and some benign. But they are my imagination and no one knows for sure what happened between the players until it comes out in trial, with a proper defense, or in an investigation they have promised to make public. This country is not supposed to be trial by lynch mob and I think the whole thing was handled poorly by all of the parties involved. </p>
<p>And GTalum, if you have read the posts, you will see where an attorney posted what the legal requirements were in 2002. The grand jury did not recommend Paterno for any violation, including cover-up. No one official is stating that he did anything illegal. What he is “convicted” of is not doing what was morally correct and what is expected of someone in his leadership position.</p>
<p>ttparent, if we as a society can move past demonizing someone like Paterno and get to how we make it easier to balance the reporting responsibility and the rights of the accused I am with you. We need to take this case and figure out how to make sure it does not continue to happen, if the facts bear out the truth of the grand jury report.</p>
<p>singersmom and rocketman…appreciate your posts.</p>
<p>I must have missed the post as to the legal requirements in PA for reporting sexual abuse. Thanks for the corrections. I never suggested that Joe Paterno did anything illegal but not “morally correct” as you suggested SM07.</p>
<p>@GTalum: Paterno did the legal ¶ minimum but not the moral minimum.</p>
<p>Singersmom, again I strenuously object to the characterization that we are unfairly demonizing Paterno. And further, what irks me is that we need not talk about his possible short-comings but others in the chain are seemingly fair game.</p>
<p>…I think you need to educate yourself about what real lynching involved, and then perhaps you’d understand why the metaphor is highly inappropriate. This is a website with more than 70 photos of lynching victims hanging from trees, etc.: [Journal</a> E: Without Sanctuary: Lynching Photography in America](<a href=“http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html]Journal”>http://withoutsanctuary.org/main.html)</p>
<p>Look at all of them, and then come back to me and tell me what that has in common with criticisms of Joe Paterno – a supremely privileged and powerful man with access to the most expensive lawyers in the country to defend him – and explain why you think it’s any more appropriate to use that word than it would be to suggest that we’re putting him in a gas chamber. I won’t heap withering scorn on your particular head or anyone else’s, because that will just get me in trouble, but I do have scorn for the use of such terminology.</p>
<p>well said…</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111113_Karen_Heller__Now__Penn_State_can_show_it_s_much_more_than_football.html”>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20111113_Karen_Heller__Now__Penn_State_can_show_it_s_much_more_than_football.html</a></p>
<p>Moderators are working quite hard to keep this thread open and within Terms of Service.</p>
<p>Members/posters should refrain from characterizing other posters, whether as individual posters or clusters. </p>
<p>Keep posting with a focus on events at PSU. If you’re about to post something to malign or name-call other posters for their differing interpretation of events at PSU, that’s ad hominem/personal insult.</p>
<p>BTW, Bogney, #1820. Like.</p>
<p>This link should work better.<br>
Well said…</p>
<p>[Karen</a> Heller: Now, Penn State can show it’s much more than football | Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/13/2011](<a href=“http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/133755783.html]Karen”>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/columnists/133755783.html)</p>
<p>Bogney,
I am going to address you with some fairly technical questions:</p>
<p>If McG did actually see a rape happening bet Sandusky and a 10 yr old boy in the FSU showers at 9:30pm in 2002, what were his legal responsibilities?</p>
<p>If he had not reported it at all to JP, or if his report did not include that he actually saw a rape, was that a cover-up?</p>
<p>Is it a cover-up by JP if he reported less than the total crime witnessed and reported to his superiors?</p>
<p>If he did not follow up his report of his actually witnessing such an act however mollified he was by his superiors that there was an investigation, what kind of act would that be?</p>
<p>It would also seem strange that he was not called in ever to repeat his report to the investigators as he was the key witness and the source of the report, meaning he should have suspected that there was no investigation or a very poor one.</p>
<p>I speaking to you LEGALISTICALLY.
Here is why: If I see a crime being committed, and I report it, I am not reporting my SUSPICIONS, SIGNS, HEARSAY; I am reporting that it HAPPENED before my eyes: there was a perp and a victim.
I see a big difference between these two things. To me, an investigation of such a report could NEVER EXONERATE Sandusky. How could be he satisfied with anything less Sandusky getting in trouble, the victim being helped, etc.??</p>
<p>What am I missing here? ( I AM LOOKING AT THIS STRICTLY FROM THE POV OF A WITNESS- obviously, the witness report has to be credible true and credible, but that is not what I debating here, though it is an extremely important issue, also.)</p>
<p>BTW, the mandated reporting system loses any oomph if it requires a victim, a witness and so forth- I am horrified at the poor results shown at various points in this case.
Key here is that there WAS a witness to the 2002 act who knew the PERP, and might have been able to ID the victim.</p>
<p>And, what are the legal consequences of a cover-up (if proven, obviously) for each and any of these individuals?</p>
<p>Rocketman and Singersmom: The main reason that Joe Paterno is being singled out is that for years he has made a big deal about how Penn State was so much better than the other programs. His quotes like “You have to perform at a consistently higher level than others. That’s the mark of a true professional.” have been proven to be self-serving and show him to be a hypocrite because when the time came to step up in defense of a child, all he did was the bare minimum. As late as 2009 Sandusky was hosting overnights for 9 years olds on Penn State Campuses. After what was reported to Joe Paterno in 2002, after the incidentes in 98 and 99 this is inexcuseable</p>
<p>It is obvious from the facts that Joe Paterno did not believe what he was saying. When it came down to it, they all Paterno included, acted as if the football program, and a close associates reputation, was more important than stopping a child rapist. </p>
<p>This is going to be Paterno’s own personal hell. From now on when his name is mentioned it will be in the context of " oh yeah, he was that coach mixed up in that Child Rape coverup. And this will be of his own doing</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The way to do that is to hold those responsible who either knew or should have known. In situations as egregious as this, I have no problem holding people to the “should have known” standard. Anyone who can say “I wish I had done more” should be held responsible. I think it’s irrefutable that if Paterno, Spanier, Schultz and Curley had done their jobs as they should, they would have done more. I’m sure they all wish they had.</p>
<p>Performer’s Mom:</p>
<p>I am not particularly interested in McQueary’s legal responsibilities because those do not define his moral responsibilities. I have no question that he should have reported it in detail to “the authorities.” Regardless of what the reporting law says, I do not have difficulty concluding that McQuery met his reporting responsibility if he gave Paterno “the details,” since Paterno should count as one of “the authorities” at Penn St. At that point, the onus was on Paterno to do the right thing. </p>
<p>Of course, the devil is often in “the details.” Even if the report was sanitized to the point of “I saw Sandusky doing something inappropriate in our shower with a boy,” even something that vague should have put Paterno, and Penn St. on notice to investigate a potentially serious criminal offense. </p>
<p>I agree that no investigation could “exonerate” Sandusky, but some investigation and deal could have resulted in him not going to prison. What if Sandusky made a deal to testify against a larger pedophile ring to save himself? Deals are made with criminals to catch other criminals. It is possible that McQueary could have been told that Sandusky had “been dealt with” and for McQueary to believe that the right people knew, but the system failed in allowing Sandusky to still walk. McQueary might reasonably have thought, “Sandhusky must have made a deal,” when he became aware that no legal action was forthcoming.</p>
<p>I am speculating wildly. However, who would have thought the facts we now know were possible at Penn St. before this story broke? Enough is already known to tarnish those involved. Not enough is known to assess exactly how tarnished each individual involved truly is. Some may look worse than they do already when all the facts are known (to the extent that all the facts will ever be known), and some may look better than they presently do. Some may appear more common than evil. Some may have made devil’s bargains to protect the program for financial reasons. I am fairly certain that none will look heroic or honorable.</p>
<p>There is a great book out there to be written by an excellent investigative reporter. I hope that the book is not merely salacious and rigidly condemnatory of all. I hope that it covers all of the bases and lays bare all of the nuances behind each step which each person took to distance themselves from Sandusky, or from the responsibility of stopping him. I hope it is a best seller and that it is studied in high school and college class rooms in lessons about individual responsibility and right and wrong, and speaking out against powerful interest that would prefer one to remain silent. People need to be reminded of the importance of morality over money and prestige, and this could be a fascinating true life illustration of the pitfalls of mistaken priorities, and how anyone can fall into that pit without constant vigilance.</p>
<p>performersmom, Mafia figures are often indicted for racketeering, rather than their bigger crimes which can’t quite be proven (since the mob is very well aware of the letter of the law). It appears that Spanier, Curley, Schulz, and Paterno followed the absolute letter of the law, so maybe they could face RICO charges. Or maybe obstruction of justice. Something. It cannot be that these men walk away scot-free, drawing Penn State pensions, no less.</p>
<p>LasMa- no one knows who lied to the GJ yet. Will Mcquery still appear credible when there is a defense attorney asking questions. The assumption of guilt based on a GJ finding is a flawed premise.</p>
<p>As for “glee” and Penn St. losing the game, I do not have schadenfreude at the loss so much as relief that they did not win. A win might have given those too wedded to the game a false belief in the indomitability of the Penn St. football program; i.e., we are so great that we can even overcome this! This is not a time for athletic triumph at Penn St. because the emphasis on athletics may have significantly contributed to the current debacle. I have no joy in the sorrow of losing for any young athletes, their families, and their supporters. However, I might have had more sorrow had they won.</p>