David French on the Penn State child molestation scandal.
It was cowardly for a 6′4″ graduate assistant to witness the rape of a child by an older man and not only take no action to stop it but also not even call the police. It is a symbol of extended adolescence — no, extended infancy — that instead of doing anything to help a child in distress, he called his father . . . acting not like a man but like a child in distress himself.
It was cowardly for a college football legend to do the absolute bare minimum required by law (if he even did that) in response to contemporaneous reports that a child had been abused in the coach’s own facility. I’m sorry Coach Paterno, but the call to your Athletic Director did nothing to defend the defenseless, and when you saw that nothing happened as a result of that call, it was your absolute moral obligation to take action.
It was cowardly for an athletic director to hear reports of abuse and do . . . nothing. The way of the coward is to seek self-preservation and the preservation of your friends and cronies. The coward keeps the gravy train rolling and revels in the accolades even as he knows terrible truths — truths he will never, ever have the courage to reveal.
The cowardice of some was no doubt motivated by a sincere desire to protect the reputation of the university and its football program; to preserve the house that JoePa built. And yet, as I noted yesterday, the failure to take immediate action has, in fact, done more to tarnish the PSU football program and Paterno’s legacy than would have a determined effort to protect children from the predator in their midst. It may even hit the university’s credit rating. Placing the welfare of the football program ahead of the Sandusky’s victims protected neither.
Moral courage is often it’s own reward. As C.S.Lewis commented, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at its testing point.” That should be enough. But in case it is not, these sad and tragic events are a lesson in the wages of cowardice. In failing to protect the interests of Sandusky’s victims, these men also failed to protect their own.
Pierre Corneille says:
I agree with Lewis. And I hope that if what I consider my “virtues” ever meet their testing point, that I’ll not be a coward.
November 12, 2011, 12:46 pmKen Arromdee says:
In the thread linked in the Omelas post, people pointed out that
1) The superior who Palerno called was also in charge of the police (real police, not campus police)
2) Once you have called the police, attempting to call them again will simply result in you being told they can’t comment on an ongoing investigation
I hate lynch mobs.
November 12, 2011, 1:04 pmJKB says:
Everyone is focusing on the witnessed rape but if you read the grand jury report, you’ll see that this was happening long term right in the team’s midst. He brought and raped boys at the hotel the team stayed at before home games. He raped boys in the athletic building. When the new building was opened, the rapes move to the new sauna. He took and raped boys on away games. I read Texas is opening an investigation.
Not to mention, that the charity was created by Sandusky in 1977. Pedophiles don’t open charities to help. They open them to create a supply of victims. There could be decades worth of boys raped.
This is not a lack of courage, this was a willful blindness. When the rape seen their response was to tell him not to bring anymore victims to the school apparently a-ok with his raping elsewhere.
If half of what could be true is proved, the only response should be to burn the athletic building and stadium, salt the earth and build a paper mill on the site to cover the stench.
November 12, 2011, 1:06 pmJKB says:
Everyone is focusing on the witnessed rape but if you read the grand jury report, you’ll see that this was happening long term right in the team’s midst. He brought and raped boys at the hotel the team stayed at before home games. He raped boys in the athletic building. When the new building was opened, the rapes move to the new sauna. He took and raped boys on away games. I read Texas is opening an investigation.
Not to mention, that the charity was created by Sandusky in 1977. Pedophiles don’t open charities to help. They open them to create a supply of victims. There could be decades worth of boys raped.
This is not a lack of courage, this was a willful blindness. When the rape seen their response was to tell him not to bring anymore victims to the school apparently a-ok with his raping elsewhere.
If half of what could be true is proved, the only response should be to burn the athletic building and stadium, salt the earth and build a paper mill on the site to cover the stench.
November 12, 2011, 1:09 pmKen Arromdee says:
(Correction: Schultz was in charge of the police, Palerno reported it to Curley, I think. Still, the report reached the police, or rather, would have reached the police if it wasn’t for corruption.)
November 12, 2011, 1:14 pmLN says:
He was in charge of the police in that the head of the police reported to him. He was not actually police.
If you tell the mayor of a city something you haven’t told the police.
November 12, 2011, 1:27 pmLN says:
OK, so Paterno did the right thing and was stonewalled by his boss. He was in a tough situation. Looking back, is there anything that could have been done to give Paterno more power? Could we have built more statues of him at Penn State? Could we have named more buildings for him, or paid him more money? Could we have given him more respect?
I just feel like there’s something that we could have done.
November 12, 2011, 1:30 pmKen Arromdee says:
Reading different reports I’m now not sure who he reported it to at all. One place does say Schultz, another says the athletic director. Who was it?
November 12, 2011, 1:34 pmMichael says:
And if you tell someone who is kind of in charge, but nothing happens, then you go tell the person who will really take care of things. He needed to have his eyes open enough to see that the situation wasn’t being taken care of. If the actual police and prosecutor close a file — like they did back in 1998 on Sandusky — well, then, hey, we do not condone vigilantism. But if you tell your boss about a child rapist and he is clearly dragging his feet or dropping the ball about getting the matter investigated, then you should make the call yourself. Drop by the police station on the way home. You are Joe Paterno. I think someone might listen to you if you make a report.
November 12, 2011, 1:36 pmRicardo says:
First, this is not true. The first person Paterno called was Athletic Director Curley who has nothing to do with the police. Paterno and Curley — and only those two — met privately two days after the alleged rape.
Second, the person you have in mind is Senior Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. Schultz is not a police officer — he was a senior administrator in charge of a university department which, according to Penn State’s website, currently has jurisdiction over the campus police as well as nine other departments including Human Resources, Office of Physical Plant and Office of Investment Management.
Implying that Schultz was in any sense a law enforcement official is simply spin. He was a senior bureaucrat, not a cop and there is no record of any law enforcement agency in the state of Pennsylvania ever receiving a formal complaint at the time over the alleged incident.
There was no on-going investigation and no person familiar with Penn State would have ever confused Schultz with a real police officer. Again, please read the indictment which is publicly available.
November 12, 2011, 1:40 pmDan M. says:
Paterno spoke to both Curley and Schultz about the incident. Schultz, in his testimony, says that he was called to a meeting at Paterno’s house with Curley, and that he expressed concern that the GA witnessed “something of a sexual nature” and they met with McQueary days later where McQueary told them “something” about what happened. We shall eventually discover what he reported to them.
November 12, 2011, 1:45 pmJason says:
Perhaps we could have created a simple three-digit phone number, something easy to remember, like 9-1-1, which could be used to summon law enforcement.
November 12, 2011, 1:48 pmjcc says:
@ Ken A -
“Who was it?”
Who cares? He failed to take action to protect young children. He should be prosecuted, along with anyone else who had knowledge and failed to stop the predator. In Florida, it’s called “Accessory After the Fact.” Any child molested after that day in the shower room can be laid directly at “Joe Pa’s” doorstep (the others too).
And. seconding another post, what kind of man (“person” may be better) walks into a shower room, sees a middle aged man having sex with a 10 year old, and fails to remove the child instantly and immediately from the danger? Who could possily think “I’ll leave the child and go tell Coach”? WTF?
Watching the media coverage, students have rioted, and alumni and fans are blaming the media. If the Penn State board of trustees has any sense of dignity and perspective, they should dismantle the football program right now, since apparently everyone there has lost sight of what’s important.
November 12, 2011, 1:50 pmRicardo says:
McQueary’s rather graphic testimony is relayed in the indictment. Unless he is lying now, what he reported to Curley, Schultz and Paterno (the grand jury alleges the former two perjured themselves in their testimony) was the rape of a young boy. That is consistent with the pattern of abuse attributed to Sandusky by several other witnesses and is also consistent with McQueary’s actions (corroborated by other witnesses) following that Friday night. If I call my boss on a Saturday morning and offer to meet him at home, it had better be over something extremely serious.
November 12, 2011, 1:55 pmJohn Regan says:
I have to say I’m surprised by the invective being directed at the minor players in this drama. Non-feasance in these situations would be the most common reaction.
Going to “the authorities” is a poor risk-reward play: the risk to one’s own position is high; the likelihood of corrective action is low. The authorities can be in many ways worse than the perpetrators and consequently cannot be fully trusted. Perhaps it’s fair to say it should be done anyway, and that it is blameworthy to fail to do so. But the reaction I am seeing against this failure is way out of proportion and naively unconscious of its benefit of hindsight.
I’ve extensively chronicled and documented a far, far worse atrocity than those being alleged in connection with the Penn State scandal – immeasurably worse. It has inspired only official hostility and indifference towards me and my client. The frenzied moral indignation over Joe Paterno and others thus seems completely disingenuous to me. I’m not sure what is driving it, but it’s not the nature of the conduct involved.
The likelihood is that people climb aboard the bandwagon after the government makes an accusation; that is all this episode appears to demonstrate. The conduct itself can go on and on for years unremarked upon and unaddressed, and no one cares until some prosecutor gets an indictment, which is an easy enough thing to do. Then people feel safe being “outraged”, and quickly forget that people like Paterno and McQueary had no assurance that the government or a prosecutor would do anything at all – indeed they had no assurance that the negative repercussions would not devolve upon them rather than the guilty parties.
Indeed, that is the most common outcome, and for many years was the outcome here.
Maybe people will calm down after a few more football games and think about this rationally at some point later on. The “tough questions” should not be reserved for the prosecutor chosen effigies; perhaps we should be asking tough questions of ourselves.
November 12, 2011, 1:58 pmNeo says:
So, is it cowardice that makes a school official ignore the illegal alien in their classroom (but take immediate action when there is an out-of-district child there) ?
November 12, 2011, 1:59 pmSchool officials have a problem differentiating between a discipline problem and a crime. When in doubt, it’s not a crime. The Educational/Academic Complex has carved out a niche for themselves where they get to make the rules.
Why would anybody expect Penn State to act any differently ?
LN says:
Paterno was an authority, not a mere pawn. I mean, FFS.
November 12, 2011, 2:03 pmCornellian says:
The cowardice of some was no doubt motivated by a sincere desire to protect the reputation of the university and its football program; to preserve the house that JoePa built.
In other words, the risk they would have incurred by speaking up was the risk that they might lose fewer football games going forward. Is there any better example of the absurdly overvalued status of college sports and sports in general in society today?
November 12, 2011, 2:03 pmKatja says:
Ken, here’s the problem with what Paterno did (or didn’t do):
(1) If his Grand Jury testimony is to be believed, when he heard about a sexual interaction between an underage boy and Sandusky (by a witness who was visibly distraught), he did not dig deeper; he apparently did not want to know; he just passed on the supposedly vague information to his boss.
(2) When, after having it reported to his boss, and Sandusky still was walking around freely despite having supposedly committed rape in front of an eyewitness, he did not even attempt to followup. He did not ask his boss what happened to the charges. He didn’t do anything at all. Yes, that may not have gotten him anywhere if there had been an ongoing police investigation, but if he had cared like a decent human being, he would have at least wondered. He would, incidentally, have found out that the case had been buried.
(3) He did not do anything that did not involve the criminal justice system to prevent a reoccurrence in his domain, where he presumably had some degree of control; he did not, say, seek to limit Sandusky’s access to the team facilities until the matter was resolved. That, again, may not have been possible in practice; but if it had troubled him to see a potential rapist roam his locker rooms, he would have tried.
(4) He did not apparently, in fact, do anything. He passed the buck to his immediate superior and then stopped caring.
I’m not saying that he should specifically undertaken certain measures. They may or may not have occurred to him; I’m quite willing to stipulate that human beings make imperfect judgement calls in a state of shock and do not consider all options he has. The issue is that he did not even try to do anything beyond doing the absolute minimum required by law and then washing his hands of the affair. And at least to me, Pontius Pilate is not a role model.
November 12, 2011, 2:06 pmDan M. says:
We’ll see how the perjury charges play out. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not.
November 12, 2011, 2:13 pmBillings says:
You can’t defend paterno. He admits receiving a complaint of some type about Sandusky in the shower with a boy. Sandusky was thereafter banned from bringing kids on campus. Why? If you believed the accusation was false, and that your friend of thirty years was falsely accussed of a heinous crime, you would stand up for him. Only if you believed it was true would you ban him from campus with boys. Put differently, a moral person would seek some type of resolution in the ensuing decade. It would not be ok to have a man hanging around if he “might” have been raping a boy in the showers. I mean he was the BOSS and his friend of thirty years was accussed of sexual horseplay in the showers. What BOSS wouldnt want to know. And paterno had no risk, except losing the ability to get the most wins ever. Unlike virtually everybody else in the world he was financially and personally secure.
November 12, 2011, 2:30 pmjcc says:
@ John Regan -
“…minor players in this drama…”
You mean the millionaire legendary coach and his fellow PSU employees who failed to stop a pedophile from molesting children for years after the witnessed event? I suspect they will not be considered “minor characters” in the inevitable prosecutions and lawsuits to come.
“Going to “the authorities” is a poor risk-reward play…”
What in the world are you talking about? People pick up phones and call 9-1-1 all the time. Do you really think Joe Paterno would have suffered if he immediately took steps to contact the cops? Had it happened like that, Paterno would be the hero of the piece. Plus, if Paterno called the College Park police, do you not think they would have responded? Considering his stature, Paterno could probably asked for cops to come by his office without stating a reason, and a squad or two of detectives, commanders and the like would have arrived within the hour.
“The authorities can be in many ways worse than the perpetrators…”
I seriously doubt you would find a single Sandusky victim or relative who agrees with this, save referring to those who failed to act, which might actually include law enforcement at some point.
“…people like Paterno and McQueary had no assurance that the government or a prosecutor would do anything at all…”
Well, you would have to actually tell the government to know that, wouldn’t you? I can promise that the government would do nothing if no one bothered to tell the authorities.
“Maybe people will calm down after a few more football games…”
I’m not sure what to say.
November 12, 2011, 2:34 pmAJK says:
If you have any indication that any of the authorities in Center County have done something worse than raping a ten year old boy, I’d love to hear about it.
I’m not sure it would really mean much (it’s not like the existence of a worse situation would make this one any better), but would you care to elaborate?
November 12, 2011, 2:49 pmerp says:
Amen.
I can’t imagine walking away from a child in distress even though I’m an old woman who’s 5’3 and weigh 125 lbs. I’d find something heavy and hit him on the head while snatching the child away.
Don’t make waves isn’t a rule to live by.
Disgraceful on so many levels and the whole college community including townies can’t be excluded. As anyone who’s lived in a college town knows, there are no secrets. Everyone knows everything instantly.
November 12, 2011, 3:00 pmtraderjack says:
Thinking about this situation reveals that something may be wrong in society?
Remember that the society has enacted laws protecting the rights of the alternative sex practictioners, and you have to be careful about complaining about their actions or be named a homophobic fascist.
what with NAMBLA, and the agressive protection of homosexual activities, it might be leading into this sort of situation where the observer, either subscribing to the beliefs entailed in passage of these laws, or a member of said organization mentioned simply did not feel free to take aggresive personal actions which would bring action against him personally for violation of said right.
I am not saying that that is what happened, or that the actions were not wrong, it is just that people today are more more confused as to what is acceptable for the viewers of crime to take action against the committers of the crime.
The world, or I should say the USA, is getting more liberal in the definition of acceptable sexual actions than when I was a child.
Why to you think that there are so many crimes against children that never get reported until the child remembers them after becoming an adult.
It exists, has existed , and will exist, as some humans can not control their human nature.
As an aside, perhaps and absurd aside, why was the President not properly vetted before nomination, or is that simply a mistake, or a failure to report possible criminality, for political gamesmanship.
It is easy to let a crime slide by if you will benefit by the crime in some way.
Turning a blind eye is prevalent in society except when it does not affect you status or income.
Everyone should read the “rocks and shoals” of the USN and expect to live by them.
November 12, 2011, 3:02 pmAnonymous says:
Everyone loves a scandal so they can display their “holier than thou” attitude, but the reality is the vast majority of people in Joe Paterno’s shoes would have done the exact same thing given all that was at stake. Had Paterno immediately reported it, the program and the institution still would have suffered immensely and the public still would have been outraged. He did what was legal, not what was moral. Do people actually think public figures act according to morality? No, time and time again they prove they are motivated only by self interest. He slipped up because he let his power get to his head, and thought he could get away with it when he couldn’t. His problem wasn’t that he was immoral, it was that he was stupid.
November 12, 2011, 3:03 pmJohn Regan says:
@jcc:
“Do you really think Joe Paterno would have suffered if he immediately took steps to contact the cops? Had it happened like that, Paterno would be the hero of the piece.”
This is an easy call to make now. But that’s not the call you’re expecting him to have made back when it mattered.
It might also be worth pointing out that the shower-rape allegation has no known victim attached to it, and it is inconsistent with the other known victims’ accounts, which describe more fondling type behavior, not rape.
Which is not to defend the fondling either, of course, but the main thing is that this may turn out to be not as clear cut as it may first appear, regarding who told what to whom and who knew what.
But these distinctions are lost in all the howling right now.
All that aside, it is pretty well known that crimes of this nature often go unreported. Given the stature of the alleged perpetrator here, I don’t see why all this vituperation is directed at McQueary. He didn’t keep quiet about it. Maybe he was shocked and wasn’t quite so sure about what he saw, or felt inhibited about giving too graphic an account.
In any case, this is not so simple as “call 911″ and everything will be fine. You’re just way off there.
November 12, 2011, 3:06 pmLN says:
I hadn’t heard of the “Paterno was afraid to take action because of the all-powerful gay lobby” defense before reading the Volokh Conspiracy. Thanks guys.
November 12, 2011, 3:08 pmJonathan Goldstein says:
Under Pennsylvania law, what that coach did is so powerfully awful that Pennsylvania courts have held that rape is a crime which the graduate student could have used deadly force to stop.
Indeed, rape is so repugnant that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that the graduate student could even have used deadly force to stop the rapist from fleeing:
“We therefore hold that from this date forward the use of deadly force by a private person in order to prevent the escape of one who has *174 committed a felony or has joined or assisted in the commission of a felony is justified only if the felony committed is treason, murder, voluntary manslaughter, mayhem, arson, robbery, common law rape, common law burglary, kidnapping, assault with intent to murder, rape or rob, or a felony which normally causes or threatens death or great bodily harm.[FN3] We also note that for the use of deadly force to be justified it remains absolutely essential, as before, that one of the enumerated felonies has been committed and that the person against whom the force is used is the one who committed it or joined or assisted in committing it. Commonwealth v. Duerr, 158 Pa.Super. 484, 45 A.2d 235 (1946).”
Commonwealth v. Chermansky, 430 Pa. 170, 173-4 (1968).
November 12, 2011, 3:12 pmSnaphappy says:
One last question, before I call Airmen O’Malley and Rodriguez. If you ordered that Santiago wasn’t to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why was Santiago in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base? He was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred… You said he was transferred because he was in danger. I said, “grave danger?” and you said… we can read it…
November 12, 2011, 3:13 pm- I know what I said!
- Then why the two orders?
John Regan says:
If you have the time and the inclination you can start reading about it here:
http://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/introduction/
November 12, 2011, 3:15 pmwhit says:
“Going to “the authorities” is a poor risk-reward play…”
i’m not even sure the “stop snitching” idiots would be too concerned if paterno had actually done so.
it’s only a poor risk/reward play if you think the risk of an incredibly evil child rapist being brought to justice, and at a minimum, society being warned about him is a “risk”
November 12, 2011, 3:22 pmhtom says:
McQueary’s behavior is strange for him. Before this happened, he stepped into a knife fight between two adults and broke it up. So at some level he’s not a coward; he’s been shown to be able, willing, and experienced at physical domination of an altercation.
If he had held Sandusky in high regard, and was then informed of the previous alleged attacks (and presumably thought they’d occur no more), he could have been thrown into a state of psychological denial, wondering if he should believe what he’d seen, had he maybe he’d imagined it, primed by the previous discussion and misunderstanding what he’d seen. The description of his call to his father sounds like someone who’s confused about what happened, not what he should have done.
Something was happening in his mind so that he didn’t grab Sandusky and throw him across the room, and I don’t think it was simply mere cowardice.
There appears to have been a lot of wrong-doing on many levels, and making McQueary the scapegoat seems wrong on several levels. Yes, he could have done more. By that standard, all of us will fail.
November 12, 2011, 3:22 pmClark says:
What? Haven’t you heard of the lavender mafia conspiracy? The American Conservative and National Review have always warned us ignorant masses about them. If it was powerful enough to cripple the Catholic church from acting, what’s a measly Paterno in their wake?
November 12, 2011, 3:24 pmIP98 says:
People seem to overlook the 1998 investigation into Sandusky. I find it impossible to believe Paterno had no knowledge of what the accusation against Sandusky was. Paterno was no lowly assistant coach or a first year head coach. Would Paterno have not heard even a whisper about Sandusky and victim no. 1?
So if Paterno had even a little knowledge of the 1998 investigation, wouldn’t McQueary’s story (no matter how graphic it actually was) set off all sorts of alarms? And after reporting it to the AD and not seeing any action taken against Sandusky, wouldn’t you expect Paterno to inquire of the AD what they did about the accusation? I doubt anyone at the school would tell Paterno to mind his own business.
There had to be more than a handful of people at the school that knew of the 1998 investigation and the 1992 incident McQueary witnessed. And to top it off, in 2008 Sandusky left the Second Mile charity he started because he was being investigated for allegations by a Clinton County youth. Yet until he was arrested, Sandusky was still welcome to use the Penn State facilities, just not with any youths.
A lot of people at PSU and Second Mile are going to have to answer a lot of embarrassing questions for a long time.
November 12, 2011, 3:26 pmClark says:
What? Haven’t you heard of the lavender mafia conspiracy? If it was powerful enough to cripple the Catholic church from acting, what’s a measly Paterno in their wake?
November 12, 2011, 3:27 pmLN says:
That’s from a 1982 Sports Illustrated story. I would consider the probability that future news puts Paterno in an even worse light quite high, and the probability that future news puts Paterno in a better light quite low.
November 12, 2011, 3:35 pmJohn Regan says:
“The authorities” are not “society”, and going to them is no guarantee that society is going to be warned about anything.
Respectfully, the prevailing opinion about all this right now is over-emotional and facile. There are genuine risks and trade-offs in what people are insisting McQueary or Paterno should have done or not done, and little or no appreciation for them – just a rush to condemn them with the benefit of hindsight, and after the government has already weighed in with an indictment, when it’s far safer to even have an opinion.
But I understand people are upset. And they should be. But not just with McQueary and Paterno. There’s a system failure here of a kind that happens a lot, just not so often with famous football coaches and big football schools.
And it’s our system. We all have a role to play.
November 12, 2011, 3:43 pmjukeboxgrad says:
regan:
It might be worth pointing out that you seem to have not bothered reading the grand jury report. According that report, this is what McQueary saw:
Compare that to this:
And to this:
I think that “slight penetration” counts as “rape.”
And then there’s this:
That is also penetration/rape.
And then there’s this:
That is also penetration/rape.
There’s more, but this is enough to demonstrate that your claim (“it is inconsistent with the other known victims’ accounts, which describe more fondling type behavior, not rape”) is complete bullshit.
I understand your role: making shit up.
November 12, 2011, 3:50 pmjcc says:
@ John R -
“…this is not so simple as “call 911″ and everything will be fine. You’re just way off there.”
Guess we’ll never know, since the people involved had neither the moral sense nor spinal fortitude to try that fairly elemental step. Calling the police seems pretty simple to me.
It certainly beats doing nothing at all.
November 12, 2011, 4:02 pmJohn Regan says:
I stand corrected with respect to that Victim 4 account, with the caveat that the account appears ambiguous – the word “attempt” is used, which implies an intended act that did not actually occur. That’s what it implies to lawyers, anyway.
I don’t suppose it would do any good, given your emotional reaction, to re-iterate that I wasn’t defending fondling behavior either, or any attempted sexual misconduct. But I’ll point it out anyway.
And while this may seem absurdly technical to you, the other situations, while very serious sexual abuse, would not constitute “rape” as it’s usually defined.
And the issue I was addressing was not what McQueary apparently testified to in front of the grand jury within the past year, but rather what he told others about the incident at the time, almost a decade ago.
I’m not defending anything, really, except sober reasoning over emotional outbursts on the individual or collective level.
November 12, 2011, 4:06 pmjcc says:
@ jbg -
It’s really quite stunning, I think, that there’s even discussion about this. Not reporting a pedophile – forget about taking immediate action to protect the child – is the same as enabling further attacks.
November 12, 2011, 4:12 pmJohn Regan says:
I don’t think there’s an allegation that people didn’t do anything “at all”. I think the issue is whether they did enough, or did the right thing or things. I realize that in some places, for some selected people, it is required by law to go to “the authorities”, and I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but even in the best of circumstances that’s not all there is to it and right now people seem to be heedless of these considerations as they heap judgment upon others.
It’s just overboard in my view, that’s all.
November 12, 2011, 4:15 pmLN says:
If you cared about sober reasoning you wouldn’t have written something like
“The authorities can be in many ways worse than the perpetrators and consequently cannot be fully trusted.”
You would also have understood that Joe Paterno, a legendary multimillionaire who had been at Penn State for decades and who has multiple buildings named after him on campus, not to speak of a statue of him by the football stadium, was not some poor middle manager who was at risk of being fired for raising a concern about someone who used to be his right-hand man. Joe Paterno *was* the authorities. He was the most powerful man on campus. He was arguably the most powerful man in the state.
November 12, 2011, 4:22 pmDr. Weevil says:
I don’t imagine there’s a lot of overlap between readers of Volokh.com and readers of A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago (formerly Throwing Things), a group blog about popular culture, so most of you probably haven’t seen this story. Isaac Spaceman (a pseudonym, surely) blogs about a teacher at his middle school,
November 12, 2011, 4:23 pm“a middle-aged confirmed bachelor who took groups of boys on camping trips, had unusually close relationships with former students, frequently gave beer to minors, had late night impromptu hot tub parties with the same minors, and showed children at his house videos of horses having sex”. He was eventually shot dead right in front of the school by a 20-something former student, whom he had been molesting since 9th grade. Mostly I.S. explores how the teacher got away with his creepy behavior so long. As he says, “There is no logical reason why I should not have connected the dots and marched into the Whitman office – at 16 years old or later, whenever I remembered those times – and said ‘this man should not be teaching children.’ But I didn’t.” A very interesting post, and very pertinent to the Penn State scandal.
rpt says:
Good commentary; it is noteworthy that the Obama DOJ has been much harsher on whistleblowers than was the Bush. Nevertheless, if anyone involved, even JP, thought that the PSU authorities were going to cover up, they should have gone to the media, perhaps anonymously to start an investigation, or, if that failed, going public. Surely there were lawyers prosecuting child abuse cases against the Catholic Church in Philadelphia?
If JP truly loved PSU he would have known that by covering up in the short term, he was guaranteeing much greater harm for the school, himself, and others, when the facts finally came out. What was he thinking?
Finally, if the GJ investigation has been going on for several years, didn’t anyone, PSU or individuals, prepare for what would happen when indictments were issued? How were they caught unprepared?> This looks like a complete failure by everyone involved on all levels.
November 12, 2011, 4:23 pmtrash says:
If nothing still happens, you take your case to the public and demand to know why nothing is being done. You personally ensure the perp is dissociated from you, or you will dissociate yourself. JoePa had the juice to handle this and more de facto authority, just from his name, than the university president.
This is an interesting case in which the moral virtue of courage would, if exercised, have been also in the long-term rational self-interest of the institution.
It shares that in common with the Vatican child sex abuse scandals, which caused incalculably more damage to the RCC than would have occurred had the institution behaved honorably.
The decisions made by virtually everyone in this case were not merely cowardly, but short-sighted and self-destructive. To have trusted an employe who turned out to be a perpetrator is at most an error in judgment. To have shielded and enabled a perpetrator and thereby amplified his ability to abuse by an order of magnitude is reprehensible and atrocious.
November 12, 2011, 4:29 pmJohn Regan says:
Perhaps you have more faith in “authorities” than you should. Are you saying that the authorities can never be worse than the perpetrators and can always be fully trusted?
November 12, 2011, 4:29 pmNot an Economist says:
One question I have is what evidence (other than Sandusky not being in jail) is there that Paterno did not follow up with his bosses? If he asked them about what was going on after the meeting with them and his bosses said they were taking care of it, then wouldn’t he have done all that he should have? I have scanned the grand jury report and I couldn’t find (although I may have missed it) anything that said Paterno didn’t follow up afterwords. Could anybody point me to where that was said by somebody involved with the case or in the grand jury report?
November 12, 2011, 4:33 pmrpt says:
Accordingly, he could have stopped Sandusky at any time from 1998 (or earlier?) on, and avoided any adverse consequence to himself, the school, the program the athletes or the victims. Why didn’t he?
November 12, 2011, 4:39 pmLN says:
No, and this case proves it — obviously Joe Paterno couldn’t be trusted at all, he chose to protect his football program instead of a child (or likely dozens if not hundreds of children, Sadunsky started his charity 34 years ago).
November 12, 2011, 4:39 pmC.S. Lewis on Courage | Brent Logan says:
[...] the virtues, but the form of every virtue at its testing point.” –C.S. Lewis _____Hat tip: The Volokh Conspiracy. /* « Older [...]
November 12, 2011, 4:46 pmjcc says:
@ John R -
“I don’t think there’s an allegation that people didn’t do anything “at all”. I think the issue is whether they did enough, or did the right thing or things.”
With all due respect, I simply fail to see any justification for anyone – grad student to Paterno to AD to VP – for their collective failure to report the allegation. Telling someone else who then fails to take action in no way absolves the first individual from responsibility. Concerning children at risk, we should reasonably expect adults to act accordingly. In this case, some of those adults were wealthy and powerful figures within the PSU sub-culture. I cannot imagine, say, the Athletic Director or PSU Vice President being at hazard for reporting a 2nd hand allegation to the police. In any event, the allegations were ignored not because Joe Paterno or the others worried about retaliation or job security. They were worried about damage attaching to the athletic programs if the scandal became public knowledge. So they put football and football revenue ahead of the welfare of children at risk.
I can see you’re trying to be nuanced, but it really is black and white. There’s no room for equivocation when talking about child abuse. Pedophiles do what they do until they are forced to stop, usually by removal from proximity to children.
“…emotional outbursts…”
If I were to make an emotional outburst, it would be something like this: How on earth did the grad student restrain himself from leaping upon the man raping the 10 year old child and choking him into unconsciousness? I suspect that would be the initial response from most adults – absolute unbridled rage. I freely confess it to be mine.
November 12, 2011, 4:47 pmLN says:
My guess is: once you cover up for Sandusky, you have to keep covering up for him, or else explain why you didn’t do anything earlier.
Maybe initially you protect him out of loyalty, maybe you imagine it wasn’t that bad, maybe just a single slip-up, it’s not worth embarrassing the program about one case.
Then the cases and the years pile up and you’re basically an accomplice.
November 12, 2011, 4:49 pmIsab says:
It looks to me like Penn State took action and went to the police in 1998 but did not have enough evidence to convince a prosecutor to actually take it to trial.
So if Joe Paterno had made a stink about the incident in 2002 the questions would have been the same ones everyone is hyperventilating about now i.e. “Why didn’t you stop this guy in the 90′s?” and “You should have done more”
If you think child molestation is a slam dunk with an eye witness, think Michael Jackson, (who is the face of pretty substantial evidence that he was a child molester), was acquitted in court.
November 12, 2011, 5:01 pmJohn Herbison says:
It is reported that Coach McQueary jokingly told his wide receivers that he is “in protective custody”:
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2011/11/mcqueary_tells_psu_wideouts_he.html
The university’s sports information director later issued a clarification that the coach was only joking.
November 12, 2011, 5:02 pmJohn Herbison says:
I wonder how much Coach Paterno’s Catholic upbringing had to do with his failure to act more appropriately.
November 12, 2011, 5:05 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
This is just sententious, unless you have evidence that all – or even most – coverups fail.
November 12, 2011, 5:09 pmSenX says:
Growing up in Brownson House, Sandusky had observed the same thing about troubled children. “So much of what happens depends on the care and concern that people show for them,” he says. “I saw so many kids come through there who never really had a family or anybody to care about them or give them any guidance at all. It always bothered me.”
I would guess that this is where he(and probably others) were molested as well.
November 12, 2011, 5:19 pmtrash says:
History seems to suggest that coverups of sex abuse scandals involving children who are still alive generally do fail. It might take quite some time, but they generally ultimately fail.
I’m also not certain exactly why you chose the word “sententious.”
November 12, 2011, 5:21 pmLN says:
How would you know about the ones that didn’t?
November 12, 2011, 5:26 pmIsab says:
History seems to suggest that coverups of sex abuse scandals involving children who are still alive generally do fail. It might take quite some time, but they generally ultimately fail.
The only problem with this logic, is that, by definition, the “successful coverups” will be the ones you never hear about.
My guess is for every child molester who is both identified and brought to justice, there is at least 20-50 out there who never see the inside of a court room.
November 12, 2011, 5:29 pmragebot says:
It may not be evidence but in 2004 the PSU Board of Trustees asked Paterno to step down as head coach and he refused. By all accounts Paterno was the big man on campus, the big man in Happy Valley, and by some accounts the big man in the state of PA.
If Paterno wanted an investigation there would have been one.
November 12, 2011, 5:30 pmjukeboxgrad says:
jcc:
Yup. It should also be remembered that the police are always ready to accept anonymous tips. This is something that seems to be overlooked by various people, like the person in the other thread who said this: “no way would I want to be drawn into a matter that had nothing to do with me and that might result in years of legal proceedings, depositions, defamation suits, etc.”
=====================
regan:
More bullshit. The report says this:
I highlighted some important words. This is the act that did “actually occur:” “slight penetration.” This “slight penetration” was not just “an intended act.” There was not just an “attempt” at “slight penetration.” Which of the simple English words “there was slight penetration” are you not able to comprehend?
Yes, the word “attempt” is used, along with the word “resisted,” to indicate that Sandusky intended for the penetration to be more than just “slight.” Yes, there was “an intended act that did not actually occur.” This is the “intended act that did not actually occur:” complete penetration. But what did actually occur is still rape.
You’re trying hard to minimize and deflect the gravity of the matter.
According to the PA statute (pdf), rape is defined as (among other things) sexual intercourse with any underage person. And the term “sexual intercourse … includes intercourse per os [orally] or per anus, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required.”
According to this definition, Victims 1, 2, and 4 were all raped.
According to Paterno’s own testimony, “the graduate assistant was very upset,” and had witnessed Sandusky “doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” This is enough to establish Paterno’s duty to take the situation seriously, much more seriously that what is indicated by his actions.
And according to Schultz’s testimony, Paterno at the time described Sandusky’s reported conduct as “disturbing” and “inappropriate.” This is another indication that Paterno knew, at the time, that the situation was serious.
You are inventing your own facts, which doesn’t fit any normal concept of “sober reasoning.”
What are “these considerations” which justify failing to call the police?
Perhaps you have less faith in “authorities” than you should.
What a great example of a deeply asinine straw-man argument. Are you saying that JP had some reason to think that the police were going to do something “worse” than what Sandusky was doing? Do the local police have a history of raping children?
November 12, 2011, 5:35 pmSenX says:
I suppose it’s a bit unfair of me to suggest that place was where he first got molested. I do think it will come out (as a defense?) that he was molested as a youth though. Also I find the age of him moving here and the age of his victims coincidental and possibly indicating something.
“LN says:
rpt:
Accordingly, he could have stopped Sandusky at any time from 1998 (or earlier?) on, and avoided any adverse consequence to himself, the school, the program the athletes or the victims. Why didn’t he?
My guess is: once you cover up for Sandusky, you have to keep covering up for him, or else explain why you didn’t do anything earlier.
Maybe initially you protect him out of loyalty, maybe you imagine it wasn’t that bad, maybe just a single slip-up, it’s not worth embarrassing the program about one case.
Then the cases and the years pile up and you’re basically an accomplice
“This is my fear as well :(
November 12, 2011, 5:35 pmRoger says:
I don’t want John Regan as my uncle.
November 12, 2011, 5:58 pmAnderson says:
The Penn State scandal has been informational. There are far more depraved people than I would have guessed associated with Penn State.
There are also more depraved people than I would have guessed commenting at this blog.
Perhaps the teachings of Ayn Rand didn’t cover what to do when you learn someone in your organization is molesting children? I guess one has to weigh the greatness of the molester and the organization against the petty value of children who were objects of charity to begin with. In that light, the acts of McQueary, Paterno et al. make excellent moral sense.
November 12, 2011, 6:00 pmLN says:
Yes, answering those questions sounds nearly impossible. It’s bound to cause you some embarrassment and may expose you to some legal difficulties. Best to not tell the police at all about the new case then.
And then if someone else sees Sandusky raping a child, well if you go to the police then those questions are going to be even *tougher* to answer, so better hush that up too.
And what’s that, Sandusky has been working with little boys for over 30 years now? Wow, how many kids do you think he’s molested then? This story is going to be horrible when it comes out. Best to conceal it as much as possible.
You’re right, Paterno was just doing the right thing, it’s hard to blame him for the choices he made.
I can’t help but think that if he had had some kind of role model — some kind of inspirational leader full of moral lessons — then he may have found the courage to do the right thing.
Oh well.
November 12, 2011, 6:07 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Rational self-interest?
November 12, 2011, 6:21 pmB-Rob says:
As I pointed out the other day to some FB friends, the question is whether someone who does that is legally and contractually required of him, who was not a witness to any crime, should lose a job they have held and performed in an exemplary manner for 46 years because people are upset that he “did not do enough” from their subjective, after the fact perspective. I think the answer should be “no.”
There was an investigation in 1998 and basically, the state determined that Sandusky had done nothing wrong. Let’s assume Paterno knows about the outcome of that investigation, then hears about another situation in 2002. His bias, of course, based on past history, would be to discount it.
And let’s step back a bit. Paterno saw nothing, was not a witness to any sexual impropriety. And the man had been investigated twice previously with NO CHARGES ever filed against him. REPEAT — two investigations, no charges, no findings that he did anything improper. If you did not see anything, and previous skeevy behavior was investigated and determined to be unfounded by the county prosecutor and child protective services, exactly what the heck are you supposed to report to the police? How would his report to the cop go?
Paterno: I would like you to investigate my former employee.
Cop: For what?
Paterno: Possible child molestation.
Cop: Who is the child?
Paterno: I don’t know.
Cop: Well what does the child look like?
Paterno: No idea. I wasn’t there.
Cop: Where did this happen?
Paterno: In the showers I think.
Cop: You think?
Paterno: Yeah. Because I wasn’t there and did not see it.
Cop: What was your former employee doing?
Paterno: I heard he was [deleted] the kid in the anus. But since I wasn’t there, I don’t know what he was doing.
Cop: You heard this from who?
Paterno: The 28 year old former football player who told me he saw it.
Cop: So you want me to investigate your former employee for child molestation that you did not see on a child you cannot identify, which may or may not have occurred in a shower, but you don’t know because you were not there?
Paternio: Exactly! You got it! Investigate away!
At which point the cop calls adult protective services to see if Mr. Paterno might need a guardian . . . .
November 12, 2011, 6:22 pmJohn Regan says:
regan:
More bullshit….You’re trying hard to minimize and deflect the gravity of the matter.
I admitted an error regarding the “slight penetration” with respect to victim 4; I wasn’t minimizing, I was trying to avoid a rather pointless discussion about the difference between rape and sodomy or “deviate sexual intercourse” which I don’t think is illuminating here at all.
According to Paterno’s own testimony, “the graduate assistant was very upset,” and had witnessed Sandusky “doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” This is enough to establish Paterno’s duty to take the situation seriously, much more seriously that what is indicated by his actions.
And according to Schultz’s testimony, Paterno at the time described Sandusky’s reported conduct as “disturbing” and “inappropriate.” This is another indication that Paterno knew, at the time, that the situation was serious.
You are inventing your own facts, which doesn’t fit any normal concept of “sober reasoning.”
Except for the somewhat ambiguous claims regarding victim 4 and the out and out rape claim (for which there is a witness but no identifiable victim), it’s a fair reading that what is being alleged is more sexual abuse and molestation, not rape. But I’ll agree that rape, with respect to victim 4 is also a fair reading. There can be more than one fair reading, in other words. The idea that I am inventing my own facts is not a fair characterization.
What are “these considerations” which justify failing to call the police?
I didn’t say that failing to call the police was “justified”.
Perhaps you have less faith in “authorities” than you should.
What a great example of a deeply asinine straw-man argument. Are you saying that JP had some reason to think that the police were going to do something “worse” than what Sandusky was doing? Do the local police have a history of raping children?
I know of an entire police department with a reputation for sexually abusing underage women. I also know of situations in which police departments have not only failed to act against powerful perpetrators, but actually affirmatively acted against the complaining witnesses. This may all be unthinkable to you, but that may be a limitation on your experience and knowledge, not an indication that these things can’t happen or aren’t true.
November 12, 2011, 6:26 pmB-Rob says:
Under Randian thought, money is the only measure of what should be done, since there is no morality. As such, if it will cost less money to disclose and end the molestation, you report. If it will cost you more money to disclose and end the molestation, you do not report. Under Randian thought, the university employees may have done the correct thing by not reporting the crimes.
November 12, 2011, 6:28 pmLN says:
If someone who has been working with thousands of little kids for decades has been investigated MULTIPLE times for sexual abuse, and a family friend of this man (who happens to be the former star quarterback/co-captain and my current employee) comes to me saying that he saw him anally raping a 10-year-old in my locker room… my bias is not to “discount it.”
And what point in your unbelievably moronic hypothetical conversation does the cop think about contacting McQueary?
November 12, 2011, 6:34 pmLN says:
November 12, 2011, 6:35 pmRichard says:
I have been following this not because of any special interest in sports but because I have been in the position of the “civilian” supervisor of a campus police force. As such, Schultz’s action as far as it has been reported is completely incomprehensible to me. Had such a thing been reported to me, I would have reached for the phone and called the campus police chief. The only discussion would have been whether campus police had the capacity and impartiality to do the investigation or whether we needed to call the sheriff. Then I would have suspended the alleged perpetrator pending investigation or gone to the President if the person didn’t report to me. Higher education law requires an investigation of an allegation of sexual harassment among adults or students though this would normally be done by HR and/or legal affairs if there were no allegation of sexual assault. I venture to say that there is no high level administrator in higher education that has not dealt with multiple allegations of sexual harassment. We all knew the rules about investigation. An allegation of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust is several orders of magnitude beyond this. It might be that the allegation would prove baseless but that is why you have an investigation. There can be grey areas about to whom (police, social services, supervisor etc.) an allegation needs to be reported but there is no question about the need for an investigation. And in the case of an allegation about of sexual assault on a child by a person in a position of trust, there is no question it is a police matter.
November 12, 2011, 6:36 pmSenX says:
AMBRIDGE, Pa. — The books were uncovered in an old box Wednesday, and Kip Richeal called to say it was OK to stop by and grab one, free of charge. It never came close to being a best-seller; it almost didn’t get published; and Richeal, the co-author, never liked the title. But Jerry Sandusky insisted. He wanted the book about his life to be called “Touched.”
So “Touched”…
Mockery of those who can’t catch him (a la serial killers who write to police) or cry for help?
November 12, 2011, 6:42 pmNM Kerr says:
Any adult who would not intercede is simply a coward. The possible losses are far less than having to deal with yur concience for failing to act latter,assuming that you have one.
Some things are worth nearly any risk, much less little ones like the slight possibility that you might lose something relatively trivial like money or a job.
November 12, 2011, 7:08 pmRandy says:
trader: “what with NAMBLA, and the agressive protection of homosexual activities, it might be leading into this sort of situation where the observer, either subscribing to the beliefs entailed in passage of these laws, or a member of said organization mentioned simply did not feel free to take aggresive personal actions which would bring action against him personally for violation of said right.”
Yes, thank god we have the Catholic Church which works to roll back all that protection of homosexual activities. They would never let pedophilia gain a foothold in America or anywhere else.
Oh, wait….
November 12, 2011, 7:10 pmleo marvin says:
Why should my tax dollars be used to punish what Sandusky did? If raping children is so awful, won’t the marketplace punish Penn State with fewer applications from families that don’t go for that sort of thing?
November 12, 2011, 7:19 pmAnonymused says:
Had McQueary done what you suggest, the rapist and victim could have been identified to law enforcement that night, with the physical evidence of rape secured by an exam of the victim. A cover up of Sandusky would have been difficult at that point. The direct intervention mentioned in your emotional outburst sounds like the rational thing to have done.
November 12, 2011, 7:25 pmwhit says:
no, it’s not. and based upon what we know he knew, or even he suspected, the only MORAL course of action, was AT A MINIMUM to call the police
period. full stop. i would argue he should have done more. but that’s the BARE minimum
November 12, 2011, 7:28 pmwhit says:
this is utter hogwash. and fwiw, i am a libertarian who is NOT a randian, but i know darn well enough about objectivism etc. to know this is a ridiculous distortion.
it’s not even decent troll-fu.
November 12, 2011, 7:32 pmIsab says:
You’re right, Paterno was just doing the right thing, it’s hard to blame him for the choices he made.
LN, under no circumstances would I argue Paterno did “the right thing”
What I am arguing and will continue to argue, is that legal liability and losing your job,as Paterno did, should only occur if you actively do the wrong thing
Moral culpability? Probably yes. There have been a few times in my life, I have kicked myself for not doing more in some situation that turned out badly, but in a lot of cases, there is only one choice that leads to the correct outcome and there are a thousand different choices that lead to a bad outcome.
In legal terms, Paterno, had no mens rea. He went to the grand jury and told the truth. Contrast that with the AD and the financial officer who went to the grand jury and lied because they KNEW they were culpable for not doing what they had the authority and ability to do.
This whole witch hunt, with Penn State firing everyone in sight, seems classic guilt by association, and is designed to put a damper on the civil suits soon to follow.
I find it kinda of scary that a lot of people seem to be arguing that since Paterno was wildly popular at Penn state that he was the defacto boss of the whole institution and should have initiated an investigation into a crime that he had hearsay knowledge of without a known victim.
When you people can tell me next week’s lotto numbers I will concede your superior prescience.
November 12, 2011, 7:34 pmAlanmt says:
John Scalzi got it exactly right, as mentioned earlier.
John Regan, B-Rob, you might want to read his article. Point No. 3 is exactly what Paterno should have done.
This is not a difficult moral question. The failure of some of you to get it is quite alarming. You might want to check your own moral compasses, gentlemen.
November 12, 2011, 7:36 pmNM Kerr says:
Cover up rapes is a crime, should the market place determine punishment in a criminal case?
November 12, 2011, 7:38 pmGBED says:
All that I can say is Sandusky better be guilty. He has already been convicted and is awaiting execution.
November 12, 2011, 7:54 pmLN says:
Legal liability will have to wait for more facts to come out. I don’t see anyone arguing that Paterno should be in jail. He is not being charged with anything.
Losing your job is a different matter. Football coaches get fired all the time. They don’t even have to go to jail first.
November 12, 2011, 7:54 pmMichael F. says:
More like, “at which point the cop calls McQueary and interviews him.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
November 12, 2011, 7:55 pmmartha says:
I am wondering if PSU will continue to employ Jay Witherite, the supervisor who received a report of child abuse from two janitors who observed it.
Would Witherite, also, have had a legal duty to report? How about Petrosky (also still employed by PSU)? Granted, they didn’t have the influence of Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, but still, they knew of a problem even earlier than McQueary.
November 12, 2011, 7:56 pmB-Rob says:
My fifth grade teacher once said “Empty barrels make the most noise.” You are a perfect example of that old nostrum. You resort to name calling because you have no rational argument.
Please explain to me what, exactly, Paterno was supposed to report to the police, other than what I just wrote. He had no facts; he saw nothing first hand; he had no idea who the child was; he was not present during any of the events; and he didn’t witness anything else. So what the hell was he supposed to report?
Likewise, if a man is investigated and cleared repeatedly when weirdo behavior/child abuse allegations are made, exactly what was Paterno supposed to have done? Tell the cops “Hey, I know he had been cleared of these things, and I have no evidence that he has done anything else, but you should keep investigating him anyway”? What planet do you love on, LN? Does the phrases “probably cause” or “due process” or “Section 1983″ or “defamation” mean anything to you? You are expecting a wealthy, high profile individual, who has a lot to lose, to make allegations against a former employee and friend based on . . . what? A hunch?
There is no evidence Paterno knew anything. I know this fact is difficult to swallow when people want blood, but a fact it is.
November 12, 2011, 8:11 pmleo marvin says:
I was being sarcastic. Sorry if I misled you. I thought “If raping children is so awful” and “for families that don’t go for that sort of thing” would give it away.
November 12, 2011, 8:16 pmB-Rob says:
Er, no. As soon as someone explains to me WHAT Paterno should have reported, I will consider whether he failed in some duty. When you have no facts supporting your suspicions about a person, how is it “moral” to initiate a police investigation of another person? Maybe in a world where the courts always get it right, and no one gets railroaded into prison for something they did not do, it is OK. But that is not the world we live in.
November 12, 2011, 8:17 pmMichael F. says:
If your point is that McQueary should have called police before leaving the building, rather than telling Paterno the next day, then I agree. If you think that Paterno didn’t have enough information to justify going to the police himself, then you are just flat out wrong. If the abuse had happened at a PSU football camp, and Paterno knew what he knew about this victim, then he would be guilty of a crime.
Read the mandatory disclosure statute. If you are required to report, then you have to report even suspicion that a child you came into contact with in the course of your job has been abused. You are required to report if your job brings you into regular contact with minors. Like at summer football camps.
November 12, 2011, 8:19 pmJJ billings says:
B-Rob’s position makes no sense. If you are a boss at prestigious workplace, and your long time colleague is allegedly seen naked with a ten year old boy at your own work place, where you are the boss, and you think enough of it to report it to someone else and ban him from your workplace with kids, it is not appropriate to do nothing for a decade while he continues to hang around your work place. Either a) he is falsely accused and banned from being around children or b) he is continuing to use the prestige of the workplace to work with troubled children. With those two possibilities, doing nothing for a decade is not acceptable. Of course, the most reasonable inference from the inaction is that, well, they knew. Even leaving that aside, there is much that could be done. You could seek, at a minimum, an all clear from the people you reported sometime in the next eight years. Why not check in, say, one year later, and ask if the ban should be lifted. Why not check in two years later and ask? Yes, I agree with B-Robb to a limited extent–it is not as easy as it sounds now to make a choice right away about what to do. We all want to think we would be heroes, but maybe not. But within the next eight years, while Sandusky continues to work with troubled children and use the prestige of PSU as part of that work, to fail to seek resolution. That’s indfensible. Let’s make it personal. If B-Rob received a report that a long time colleague was seen naked in his workplace with a ten year old boy, would he continue to work with him for the next eight years, knowing all the while that colleague was still working with little boys, and say nothing, do nothing, and just continue to be his friend. I bet not.
November 12, 2011, 8:25 pmbearing says:
B-Rob: “Er, no. As soon as someone explains to me WHAT Paterno should have reported, I will consider whether he failed in some duty. ”
[ring ring ring] “Hello, such and such a Precinct, can I help you?”
“I have an employee here standing in front of me who is telling me that last night he witnessed a child being sexually molested or something in the showers at our building. Would you like to send an officer here to interview him, or should I drive him in to the station so he can make a full report?, Oh, by the way, I’m Joe Paterno and I’m kinda busy today, so can we do it right away?”
November 12, 2011, 8:28 pmwhit says:
legal liability and losing your job are two different arguments.
“What I am arguing and will continue to argue, is that legal liability and losing your job,as Paterno did, should only occur if you actively do the wrong thing”
i don’t think anybody argues he had legal liability. he wasn’t a mandatory reporter.
losing your job is another thing. one most certainly can lose one’s job for exercising phenomenally bad judgment ESPECIALLY if it’s something related to the workplace and fellow employees.
in many jobs, employers require more. one certainly can be fired for not doing the right thing, not merely NOT doing the wrong thing
example… he’s walking out of his office and he sees a man bleeding on the sidewalk. he refuses to call 911. doesn’t want to waste his time or something.
his failure to act could CERTAINLY result in his being fired. he didn’t “actively do the wrong thing”. he FAILED to do the right thing
and in that case, it was a RIGHT THING that he is under NO legal obligation whatsoever to do. he is NOT required (legally to call 911). even if he has a cell phone, and he could save the person’s life.
no legal duty whatsoever.
if he didn’t do so, should he be fired?
of COURSE
period. full stop
so, your logic is faulty
November 12, 2011, 8:28 pmClark says:
And Poe wept.
November 12, 2011, 8:31 pmjukeboxgrad says:
b-rob:
No, that’s not what Paterno needed to say to the police. This is what he needed to say to the police: ‘McQueary came to me very upset, and told me he saw Sandusky doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.’ That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Notice that this is precisely what Paterno told the grand jury. This is all he needed to tell the police. If the police then decided to do nothing, or looked into the situation and found nothing, then we would be pointing fingers at the police now, but not at Paterno.
Paterno did not need to force the police to conduct an investigation. He just needed to make a simple report. Then it’s out of his hands. His failure to make that report is a big problem.
An easy question, which I just answered. (And I realize that bearing already gave you the same answer.)
Done.
It wasn’t up to Paterno “to initiate a police investigation.” It’s up to the police to make that decision. His obligation was not “to initiate a police investigation.” His obligation was to tell the police what he had heard. It’s their job to take it from there.
According to his own testimony, Paterno knew that McQueary was very upset, and he knew that McQueary had said that McQueary saw Sandusky doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy. This counts as things Paterno “knew,” and he was obliged to convey this information to the police.
Then I guess no one should ever tell the police that they suspect a crime might have been committed, since we don’t live “in a world where the courts always get it right, and no one gets railroaded into prison for something they did not do.”
===============
isab:
It wasn’t his job to investigate an alleged crime. That’s what the police are for. It’s not that “Paterno … should have initiated an investigation.” It’s that Paterno should have called the police and told them what he had heard.
November 12, 2011, 8:35 pmjukeboxgrad says:
regan:
You admitted your “error” because I caught you making a bogus statement (“it is inconsistent with the other known victims’ accounts, which describe more fondling type behavior, not rape”). And then you immediately made another bogus statement. You said this:
That statement of yours was an ‘attempt’ to imply that rape “did not actually occur.” Trouble is, the grand jury report indicates that at least three different victims were raped, as that term is defined in PA (and probably most other places, too).
How ironic, since you are again “minimizing.” Your original error was not just “with respect to victim 4.” You ignored that #4 was raped, but you also ignored that #1 was raped. In addition to #2.
More irony. You’re the guy who said this:
If you don’t think it “is illuminating here at all” to get into defining the various different kinds of child sexual abuse that Sandusky did, then you should explain why you started out by trying to argue that maybe it’s not so bad if he only did “fondling type behavior, not rape.”
As far as I know, “out and out rape” is not a legal term, so you’ll have to tell me what you think it means. And it is not “a fair reading that what is being alleged is … not rape,” unless you do what you’re doing, which is adopt your own definition of “rape” and ignore what the statute actually says. As defined by the statute, at least 3 victims were raped.
Hopefully you can explain how your unstated definition of ‘rape’ is more relevant than the definition in the statute. If you can’t do that, then your latest claim (“what is being alleged is … not rape”) is yet another example of you inventing your own facts.
You are making excuses for their failure to call the police. You said this:
One more time: what are “these considerations?”
I’m not impressed by what you have written about the Sephora Davis matter, and your association with Lew Rockwell doesn’t help your credibility (link).
Unsubstantiated claims are worthless, especially when they come from someone who has a history of making things up.
November 12, 2011, 8:36 pmwhit says:
fwiw, i say this as a police officer who has investigated crimes, unfounded reports of crimes, etc. for 20 yrs.
it is not AT ALL uncommon for people to report things 3rd hand like this.
such as “hi, this is John Smith. I am a business owner at @#### address. I heard from my employee Sam Snead, that John Jason another one of our employees was raping a young boy last night”
we WOULD investigate. no question whatsoever.
reports are given (far) more credibility when the reporter is willing to give contact name, phone # (anonymous vs. identified reporters) and are obviously prioritized towards the seriousness of the alleged crime, the likelihood of finding witnesses, and the need to protect victim from further harm.
i can 100% guarantee you if we got a call from the coach of (for example) the UW or WSU or whatever saying what he had heard etc. it would be investigated. no question whatsoever.
he could have simply told police what McQueary told HIM and the police would then have the responsibility cotact McQueary. and they would do so
November 12, 2011, 8:40 pmJoe Photon says:
Joe Padre.
November 12, 2011, 8:47 pmFury says:
LN writes at 4:49 Pm:
“My guess is: once you cover up for Sandusky, you have to keep covering up for him, or else explain why you didn’t do anything earlier.”
One of the best points on the thread.
The grand jury presentment notes McQueary as indicating that both Sandusky and the victim in the 2002 rape incident saw McQueary. Did Sandusky try to contact McQueary to explain his actions, to ask him not to report the incident? No – well, at least the presentment does not mention that.
My belief is that Sandusky did not care that McQueary saw him raping a boy, because by 2002 when the crime occured, there were many people that had covered for Sandusky’s conduct up to that point – and Sandusky knew that. Perhaps Sandusky reasoned that Penn State would continue to downplay the seriousness of his actions because disclosure would rock Happy Valley to the core.
November 12, 2011, 9:10 pmjukeboxgrad says:
I agree, and I also think the rest of what you said makes a lot of sense.
November 12, 2011, 9:14 pmElliot says:
Suppose Sandusky told his lawyer about the rapes? What is the lawyer’s duty to the kids? Does she go to the police?
November 12, 2011, 9:15 pmJ. Semenak says:
Calling police would have removed any ‘ambiguity’.
November 12, 2011, 9:16 pmJohn Regan says:
That statement of yours was an ‘attempt’ to imply that rape “did not actually occur.” Trouble is, the grand jury report indicates that at least three different victims were raped, as that term is defined in PA (and probably most other places, too).
No, the Grand Jury report indicates one rape with no identifiable victim, one rape on an identified victim that is also confusingly described as an “attempt” (which would not be a completed rape) and no other acts of rape, though they are certainly serious criminal acts that I in no way attempted to minimize. You are misreading the definition of rape, and confusing factual distinctions that may bear on the reliability of evidence with an effort to “minimize” conduct.
If you don’t think it “is illuminating here at all” to get into defining the various different kinds of child sexual abuse that Sandusky did, then you should explain why you started out by trying to argue that maybe it’s not so bad if he only did “fondling type behavior, not rape.”
I can’t explain something I never did. I never said it was “not so bad”. Distinguishing and “minimizing” are two different things. If someone is accused of animal cruelty against a dog and I point out that it was a cat, I am not “minimizing” animal cruelty against dogs. I may be trying to point out that the person who thought it was a dog when in fact it was a cat doesn’t get their facts straight particularly well.
You are making excuses for their failure to call the police.
The quote you cite does not support that assertion. Explaining and understanding is not the same as excusing. But distinctions in general appear to be a problem for you.
I’m not impressed by what you have written about the Sephora Davis matter, and your association with Lew Rockwell doesn’t help your credibility
Apparently you’re only impressed by government accusations, don’t process what you read very well, are unable to make relevant distinctions and jump to a lot of unwarranted conclusions. All of which is a bit obnoxious, but not overly offensive, though I admit you’re getting there.
Unsubstantiated claims are worthless, especially when they come from someone who has a history of making things up.
And you have a tendency towards psychological projection.
November 12, 2011, 9:20 pmFury says:
Hey jukeboxgrad, hope all is well.
After reading the presentment, you just shake your head at the utter systemic failure of an organization to do the right thing. I hope the responsible parties get punished as harshly as possible criminally and get sued into next century civilly.
November 12, 2011, 9:28 pmJ. Semenak says:
If only, there was a program at PSU that taught honor and courage in the face of adversity… Ah well.
November 12, 2011, 9:35 pmJohn Herbison says:
Attorney-client communications remain privileged, at least in my state. An attorney who learns or has reasonable cause to believe that a person other than his client has molested a child (under 13, or older, dependent on the relationship between the child and perpetrator) is obliged to report the abuse to authorities, unless the disclosure would inculpate a client.
The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct permits disclosure of client confidences to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm, which harm may include the effects of continuing child sexual abuse.
November 12, 2011, 9:37 pmNM Kerr says:
Sorry, it hard to tell sarcasm form some of the serous comments on this board
November 12, 2011, 9:38 pmjukeboxgrad says:
Hi Fury, good to see you here too.
================
elliot:
I’m sure there are people here who know much more about this than I do, but here’s a partial answer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidentiality
I think this is similar to what Herbison said.
================
regan:
You’re inventing confusion where there is none, and you’re doubling down on your bullshit even though I’ve already shown that it’s bullshit. One more time, here are the relevant words from the grand jury report: “there was slight penetration.” That’s rape, period. According to the statute, it’s rape if there is “penetration however slight.” It’s probably not an accident that the people writing the grand jury report used precisely the same word (“slight”) that appears in the statute.
The fact that there was a failed “attempt” at greater penetration doesn’t make this “slight penetration” something other than rape. The statute does not recognize the concept of “completed rape,” whatever that means.
You’re saying this over and over again even though I’ve already presented the evidence proving you are wrong. This makes it awfully hard to avoid the conclusion that you’re brazenly lying.
Aside from the “slight [anal] penetration” I just mentioned, his penis was in the mouth of at least two victims. According to the statute, this is rape.
The “misreading” is all yours. I already linked the statute and cited the exact text (link). Meanwhile, you have cited nothing. Show me what I’m “misreading.”
More irony. One more time, this is what you said:
The one who “doesn’t get their facts straight particularly well” is you, because your repeated claim of “not rape” is false. And please explain why “it might also be worth pointing out” (falsely) that he did “fondling type behavior, not rape,” unless your purpose is to convince people that he did something less bad than rape.
November 12, 2011, 10:00 pmRoger says:
If Paterno did know about the 1998 investigation, then he would know that the DA had Sandusky admitting to inappropriate sexual behavior with a boy in the shower, and decided not to prosecute. A reasonable conclusion would be that the best Paterno could do would be for the university to take action, and ban Sandusky from the gym.
November 12, 2011, 10:01 pmanon says:
Just to drag climate science into this, and boy howdy do I wish I had the first post, Penn State is also involved in covering up Michael Mann’s bullshit, and it is speculated that that too was done by common individuals (e.g. Fired Penn State President Graham Spanier) to protect the institution.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/
So I just want to point out for all the flamewar goodness, that COVERING UP FOR MICHAEL MANN IS JUST LIKE CHILD MOLESTATION.
GLOBAL WARMING HOAXERS ARE JUST THIS SIDE OF CHILD MOLESTER ENABLERS.
Okay, once more, if you defend Michael Mann’s actions or Penn State’s actions in covering that up, there’s a good chance you would defend child molestation.
If you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory, you are almost certainly a child molester yourself. And I sure hope that George Soros money is enough to ease your conscience.
November 12, 2011, 10:01 pmcindi says:
Many comments keep repeating what Joe Pa should have done. Why? I guess it might make some feel better to throw bricks at him.
Joe Pa has ALREADY stated he wished he had done more. In the first paragraph of his statement he said he grieved for the children and their families and he prayed for their comfort and relief.
He did not couch his comments be calling the children as “alledged” victims. His son has said that Joe Pa is absolutely distraught over what happened to these children and their families.
Many people seem to know what was going on in his mind (only protecting the school, his legacy, his freind, etc.) How do they know? You have a coach that lives in a dump. With all his coaching acomplishments, he makes about 25% of what Nick Sabin makes. Sure he has his name all over campus, but he and his wife have given millions of dollars to the school. He’s been doing that for decades. He liked doing good things for education and students.
I don’t know what he thought of at the time all this came down. But I feel like I know how he feels now. As I pray for all those boys and their parents, I will add Coach and his family to my list. May God console them all.
November 12, 2011, 10:01 pmBill Bowser says:
What a sad time for Penn State. As a 1965 graduate I have until recently been proud of my association the that institution. It seems to me that not enough facts are known to arrive at some of the conclusions which are being reached, but many seem to enjoy the rush to judgement. This discussion has been fascinating, but it reminds me of a thunderstorm, much more noise than illumination.
November 12, 2011, 10:05 pmwhit says:
here’s another thing
i know the common meme (especially considering this blog is dominated by lawyers) is that suspects shouldn’t talk to cops, that cops are biased towards prosecution *(iow towards believing allegations are true), and that cops will do “whatever” to make a case.
that aside…
none of us KNOW what happened. these allegations very well could be false.
assuming that you are paterno, and mcqueary makes these allegations to you about Sandusky…
BY reporting it to police, you help PROTECT an innocent man (if he is innocent).
here’s a hint. physical evidence of rape… fades or is eliminated with time.
IF this guy anally raped kid(s) and the cops can get to the kids soon, not only do you at LEAST put the parents on notice so the kids won’t be around the alleged rapist again, but a RAPE KIT can be done
if the rape kit(s) turn up NEGATIVE, that helps EXONERATE the suspect, especially assuming it allegedly JUST happened. 9 yr olds don’t usually take baths/showers every day. even a couple of days later, there would likely be all sorts of EVIDENCE if there was anal penetration (especially with ejaculation) and contrarily a LACK OF EVIDENCE if there wasn’t
if *i* was falsely accused, i’d WANT it investigated as soon as possible so that when the physical evidence WASN’T there, it could PROTECT me
we all know that people have been convicted on bogus he said/she said crap, but in cases like this (clearly since consent is not an issue) the presence or lack thereof of physical evidence of something as injurious as forcible penetration says a LOT
tragedies like the duke debacle had defendants (and their attorney) practically jumping over themselves to cooperate with the investigation, provide DNA etc. that was one of the things that convinced me early on they were almost certainly INNOCENT
allegations alone, are enough to destroy a person in a lot fo ways.
*if* it’s going to come out, the suspect is better off if it does right away, so if he DID NOT do it, there will be something there to help him prove that.
stuff that comes out substantially later doesn’t give him that opportunity.
again, the goal of an investigation is to find out the truth … NOT to railroad an innocent man
assuming an innocent man was going to ever be accused of it, he’s better off if it’s investigated RIGHT AWAY
November 12, 2011, 10:09 pmanon says:
A blessing for Joe Paterno? Of course! May God bless and keep Joe Paterno… far away from my kids!
/obscure?
November 12, 2011, 10:11 pmanon says:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
November 12, 2011, 10:14 pmCourage to change the things I can,
And the balls to go after a fucking child molester when no one else will.
BL says:
Re McQueary:
About time we stopped teaching children “NEVER use violence under any circumstances” or “NEVER take the law into your own hands” or “NEVER be judgmental”. McQueary’s young enough he’s never heard anything else. Some of who are older remember at least a vestigial respect for defending innocent people (our own selves included). But only vestigial. I’m a good bit older than McQueary and still heard that nonsense.
Anyone want to bet there are professors (probably in the College of Education) teaching passivity like that at Penn State? How about firing them post-haste?
November 12, 2011, 10:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
roger:
If Paterno believed that Sandusky was not a danger to children, then there was no reason to “ban Sandusky from the gym.” If Paterno did believe that Sandusky was a danger to children, then “ban Sandusky from the gym” is just a way to move the problem somewhere else.
Sandusky was told to no longer bring kids into the building. Here’s what this shows: they didn’t care if there was a problem, as long as it happened somewhere else.
Here the proper definition of “take action,” in this situation: call the police. And if prior incidents led to a decision to not prosecute, that is no reason to hide a new incident.
If the new incident had been reported to the police, and this had led to a decision to not prosecute, then we would be complaining about the police right now, not Paterno. But on this planet, it’s Paterno who dropped the ball, not the police.
===============
cindi:
That’s good, but it’s not good enough. It’s not good enough that he wishes he had done the right thing. He needed to actually do the right thing, not retroactively express a wish about doing the right thing.
Bernie Madoff spent millions on philanthropy. Impressed?
November 12, 2011, 10:30 pmragebot says:
And you probably like Hitler as well.
November 12, 2011, 10:47 pmRoger says:
The flaw in that logic is that Paterno does not make the law. Sandusky liked to shower with boys. The DA said in 1998 that was not a crime. The reasonable course of action is to prevent him from showering with boys on campus. Maybe he could also write his legislator to pass a law against adult men showering with boys.
The police did drop the ball. A victim went to the police in Spring 2008 with a solid case against Sandusky. The police waited 3.5 years before arresting him. The DA wasted a lot of time trying to build a dubious case against Penn State officials. I think that the officials will get acquitted anyway.
November 12, 2011, 11:02 pmDave N. says:
For once I am in total agreement with Jukeboxgrad. There is no excuse for what happened at Penn State.
A two minute phone call, 9 years ago, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion today.
November 12, 2011, 11:03 pmJohn Regan says:
One more time, here are the relevant words from the grand jury report: “there was slight penetration.” That’s rape, period.
Then why does the grand jury also describe it as an “attempt”? They can’t have it both ways. A charge like that can be tossed for that reason, because it’s not clear if it’s alleging rape or attempted rape. At least where I come from it can be.
Aside from the “slight [anal] penetration” I just mentioned, his penis was in the mouth of at least two victims. According to the statute, this is rape.
This is not clear at all. It’s a terribly drafted statute. Traditionally, though, rape involved only the penetration of the genitals and therefore could only occur to a woman. There were various definitions of “sodomy” that would have criminalized the other acts described, but most jurisdictions have dropped the term sodomy. What was allegedly observed in the shower with the unnamed victim would historically have been called “forcible sodomy” as opposed to “rape”, and as distinguished from “consensual sodomy” which was also criminal. I think it would be an unfair quibble under the circumstances to dispute at this point that penetration of the anus without consent would be called rape nowadays and under this statute, since it can’t be called “forcible sodomy” anymore, but “rape” has never referred to the “penetration” of the mouth and the PA statute doesn’t make it clear whether it is, but I will say on further consideration that this confusion is the fault of the drafters of the statute and not you.
More irony. One more time, this is what you said:
It might also be worth pointing out that the shower-rape allegation has no known victim attached to it, and it is inconsistent with the other known victims’ accounts, which describe more fondling type behavior, not rape.
Quote me all you like. This quote does not in any way indicate “minimizing” anything. I made no comment or elaboration upon “fondling type behavior” that in any way indicated I thought it wasn’t serious or even less serious; my point was just that it was factually inconsistent with other accounts in which victims had been identified and also testified, and may for that reason be less reliable as to the question of whether a rape in fact occurred. And it is particularly relevant to the issue of the supposed responsibilities of others who are alleged to have “known” this and that, because it becomes even less clear what precisely it is that they “knew”. The grand jury found the witness account of the rape of the unnamed victim “credible”, but that testimony comes years later and several witnesses indicated that the more contemporaneous account from the same witness was less detailed and graphic and did not describe a rape. If memory serves some of those witnesses are now charged with perjury, but not Joe Paterno whose testimony largely agreed with the alleged perjurers. Which may also turn out to be a big problem with prosecuting those guys for perjury.
And please explain why “it might also be worth pointing out” (falsely) that he did “fondling type behavior, not rape,” unless your purpose is to convince people that he did something less bad than rape.
I just explained it again. It’s about the factual discrepancy, not about the seriousness of the conduct alleged. I’m hoping you get it this time.
You may find this tiresome – I certainly do – but it’s important that criminal charges be very fact specific. It’s a due process thing.
November 12, 2011, 11:05 pmAnonymused says:
November 12, 2011, 11:11 pmDave N. says:
By the way, those who have tried to make cheap political points off this scandal make me sick. These people should be ashamed of themselves — and yes, I mean you Arthur Kirkland; and I mean you Anderson; and I mean you “Anon”; and I mean you B-Rob. Shame on you. Shame on all of you.
November 12, 2011, 11:18 pmanon says:
Oh Jeez! There’s calling someone a child molester, and then there’s godwinning a perfectly nice thread. Gross dewd!
November 12, 2011, 11:31 pmjukeboxgrad says:
dave n:
I’m glad to hear it, but you probably remember that it’s happened a couple of times before!
=================
roger:
You seem to be under the impression that McQueary made a report to Paterno that “Sandusky liked to shower with boys.” But that’s not what happened. McQueary told Paterno that McQueary saw Sandusky doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy. That happens to be a crime.
Only if you think the problem was just “showering with boys.” But if you think that, you would be wrong.
There’s no need for a new law, because there’s already a law against doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy, and that’s what McQueary reported. Not “showering with boys.”
According to the grand jury report, there isn’t much evidence regarding Victim 1 other than the words of the victim. That’s not “a solid case.” It took time to develop evidence regarding other victims.
=================
regan:
You’re being exceptionally obtuse. I already explained this, in detail. What was attempted was complete penetration. What was actually achieved was slight penetration. There’s a legal term for that: rape.
“It’s not clear” only if you ignore the part of the statute which defines “slight penetration” as rape. Not “attempted rape.”
One more time: according to the PA statute (pdf), rape is defined as (among other things) sexual intercourse with any underage person. And the term “sexual intercourse … includes intercourse per os [orally] or per anus, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required.”
That language is perfectly clear. What’s also perfectly clear is that you’re continuing your regular practice of inventing your own facts.
And let’s recall, again, that you started by saying this:
There are reports of oral sex with at least three victims. So you haven’t just taken the position that oral sex with a minor isn’t rape. You’ve also taken the position that a man putting his penis in the mouth of a child is properly described as “fondling type behavior.” Really?
Except that it’s not “factually inconsistent with other accounts.” The “other accounts” report both anal and oral penetration, which is in fact highly consistent with the anal penetration that McQueary reported. It’s “factually inconsistent with other accounts” only if you believe that the other accounts were of just “fondling type behavior,” and that’s the fictional claim you made.
Schultz said that he and Curley “had no indication that a crime had occurred.” That’s quite bizarre, since according to Paterno’s own testimony, McQueary had told Paterno that McQueary saw Sandusky doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy. So I understand why that statement is called perjury, and I’m not aware of an equivalent statement by Paterno.
November 13, 2011, 12:15 amRandy says:
Dave N. “By the way, those who have tried to make cheap political points off this scandal make me sick. These people should be ashamed of themselves — and yes, I mean you Arthur Kirkland; and I mean you Anderson; and I mean you “Anon”; and I mean you B-Rob. Shame on you. Shame on all of you.”
And yet, the gratuitous slurs from Giant Frog and Traderjack escape your finely honed sense of self-righteousness. I wonder why?
November 13, 2011, 12:18 amwhit says:
“One more time: according to the PA statute (pdf), rape is defined as (among other things) sexual intercourse with any underage person. And the term “sexual intercourse … includes intercourse per os [orally] or per anus, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required.”
That language is perfectly clear. What’s also perfectly clear is that you’re continuing your regular practice of inventing your own facts.”
i’m not sure if the PA statute works this way, but at least where i have worked, it is not only rape if there is penetration of the victim, but ALSO if the victim is forced to penetrate the suspect.
iow, a person fellating another against his will is rape as much as if that person forced the other person to fellate him.
etc.
this is one of the ways women can commit rape against men, besides the obvious penetration.
November 13, 2011, 12:19 amThe Man Who Watches says:
Very interesting, the timing of this story’s onslaught upon public discourse. Suddenly Cain’s indescretions do not look as taudry. This coupled with the Bieber sex scandal story, which broke first and didn’t garner the requisite interest, is quite interesting. I would submit that this is another example of the power of billionaires. Afterall, isn’t Cain the darling candidate of a group of billionaires? In short, this story about a RETIRED Penn state coach over activities that happened some time ago. In short, it is nothing more than cover for Cain’s issues, a distrction if you will. It really is not note worthy as a national issue. However, it has seem to take the focus off of Cain’s sexual indiscretions. Come on use your brain and don’t be led around like a flock of sheep. By the way is Karl Rove assisting with Cain’s issues. I seem to remember sexual indiscretions being a often used attack on political enemies under Bush 43.
November 13, 2011, 12:25 amAlanmt says:
@cindi – people are talking about what Paterno should have done because:
1. The moral imperative is so simple and easily understood by most of us that we cannot fathom that he – or his defenders – don’t understand it.
2. Since there is a not insignificant minority of people who apparently don’t understand it, including the entire chain of coaching command up to the University President in the case at issue, and many commenters on this post, it is worth vocally establishing and repeating until all but those who are hopelessly amoral and those who are blinded by some sort of partisanship or worship do get it.
Since there are people so self-interested, so obtuse, so wrongheaded that they didn’t even think to do the right thing, and because of their inaction many innocent children were raped and sexually assaulted for almost another decade as a result, it is goddamn worth repeating again and again and again! When Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary and the other administrators have sold every last thing they own and donated that money to the kids who were raped because of what they didn’t do and Penn State does the same with all of its football income, it’ll still be worthwhile to talk about what these people didn’t do and what they should have.
Finally, Paterno had eight or nine years do “do something more”, but he didn’t. More than 2800 days during which he could have decided to “do something more”. Why didn’t he? And in light of these 2800+ failures, why do you think he vocalizes regrets now? Because selfish reasons are the most logical explanation for his current regrets, not any concern for the raped children that have suffered unspeakable acts and irreparable damage.
November 13, 2011, 12:25 amragebot says:
How can you be sure that is not dudette?
November 13, 2011, 12:27 amragebot says:
Are you aware of the number of eyeballs on the PSU v NU football game today compared to the number of eyeballs on the debate Cain was in? You may not agree with what others view as note worthy, but do not kid yourself about what others consider important.
November 13, 2011, 12:38 amDan M. says:
Not quite. The DA didn’t think that bear-hugging a child from behind, with an erect penis, in the shower, was “sexual contact” under the statute, though I believe that just about any outside observer would see that as something “of a sexual nature.” “Sexual contact” is a crime of intent, and isn’t defined by what an outside observer would call “something of a sexual nature.” Perverse horseplay would not be a sex crime if it were not done for sexual gratification. So it’s not clear that Joe Paterno was aware that a crime had occurred.
November 13, 2011, 12:46 amRoger says:
Dan M. is correct. Paterno, Curley, and Schultz may have figured that the allegations were similar to the 1998 ones (assuming that they knew about the 1998 investigation), and that they are therefore not criminally actionable. They could, however, take non-criminal university action to stop the inappropriate behavior.
November 13, 2011, 1:13 amRicardo says:
Get real.
“Hi, this is Joe Paterno. An employee of mine witnessed something very disturbing last night — the possible rape of a child. I didn’t witness anything myself and don’t know who was involved but I would like to provide my employee’s contact details to you so that you can take a report. I don’t know if this has already been reported but I want to make sure that this gets investigated. Thanks.”
Police get false reports all the time. That’s part of their job — to take statements, decide who is credible, and then go from there. Moreover, Paterno went to his athletic director with the information on a Sunday just a day after receiving it — obviously, it made an impression on him.
You are just spinning if you think Paterno felt obliged to speak to his boss on a weekend about the incident but then couldn’t be bothered to also speak to a police officer.
November 13, 2011, 1:17 amJohn Regan says:
There are reports of oral sex with at least three victims. So you haven’t just taken the position that oral sex with a minor isn’t rape. You’ve also taken the position that a man putting his penis in the mouth of a child is properly described as “fondling type behavior.” Really?
I haven’t taken that position at all. I said the other accounts described “more fondling type behavior, not rape”, and you left off the “more” because it doesn’t fit with the point you’re trying to make. The majority of the allegations were about “bear hugging” and “back cracking” and “knee touching” and “tickling”.
And if you check the PA statute, you would find that the more serious conduct described would perhaps more properly be called “Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse”, not “rape”, but this is a distinction without a difference anyway, since they are both felonies of the first degree.
The idea that “rape” can include what is termed “oral penetration” is of very recent vintage and apparently the FBI has not yet included it in its definition of “rape” as of September 30th:
http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/inside-criminal-justice/2011-09-what-is-a-rape
Which also raises the question whether the statute you are citing was even in effect in 2002, when some of these events are alleged to have occurred, and this could raise an ex post facto problem for the prosecutors if they tried to prosecute under that statute.
In any case, I don’t think it would be proper to accuse the FBI of “minimizing” the conduct alleged here because it didn’t fit their definition of rape; that would be quite an unfair characterization of their position and just a quibble over words and their definitions.
my point was just that it was factually inconsistent with other accounts
Except that it’s not “factually inconsistent with other accounts.” The “other accounts” report both anal and oral penetration, which is in fact highly consistent with the anal penetration that McQueary reported. It’s “factually inconsistent with other accounts” only if you believe that the other accounts were of just “fondling type behavior,” and that’s the fictional claim you made.
I didn’t say the other accounts were “just” of fondling type behavior, I said they were “more” of fondling behavior, and not rape. You may have a point that the prevailing definition of rape has been modified in recent years in some places so that the conduct described may now fit it, but that is all we have been disagreeing about.
You make too much of a pedantic quibble.
Then why does the grand jury also describe it as an “attempt”?
You’re being exceptionally obtuse. I already explained this, in detail. What was attempted was complete penetration. What was actually achieved was slight penetration. There’s a legal term for that: rape.
Of course this may seem like a pedantic quibble, too – though it isn’t – but the criminal law has a whole sub-category called “the law of attempt”, and for an indictment to refer in the same charge to the same acts as “slight penetration”, which would indicate a completed rape, and “these attempts”, which would not, makes the charge ambiguous to a lawyer. Maybe even contradictory, because an attempt is not a lesser included crime. You can’t be convicted of both attempting and completing the same act. I think you could be charged with both, but the charges would have to be distinct and the trial jury could only find you guilty of one or the other and not both.
I don’t know if you’re a lawyer or not. You would appreciate the problem more if you were. But then again, you’re not trying to appreciate legal distinctions, you are trying to score points in a pedantic quibble.
November 13, 2011, 1:21 amRicardo says:
No, unless you are a police officer or a lawyer, it is not your job to make a determination over whether something is “criminally actionable.” It is your duty that, if you receive information about a grown man naked in the shower with a child and “rhythmic slapping sounds” that accompanied this session that you contact a police officer and let him or her make the determination on whether this is actionable information.
If they do nothing, at least you tried. Sandusky, like many predators, was a serial offender who engaged in the same kind of conduct with multiple boys over a period of years. A single accusation against a powerful person may be dismissed as unreliable but when there is a paper trail of multiple accusations all pointing to exactly the same conduct over a period of years, the police and DA will be forced to act, just as they did here.
None of us can know whether or not legal action would have been taken had someone called the police in 2002. All we can know is that not reporting the incident guaranteed that no action would be taken.
November 13, 2011, 1:31 amrpt says:
I’ve liked a number of Michael Mann’s films. What’s your problem?
November 13, 2011, 1:40 amRoger says:
Huhh? The university probably gets 500 complaints a year about conduct on campus. It certainly is their job to process those complaints and decide what is criminally actionable. Of course any complainer also has the option of going directly to the police.
November 13, 2011, 2:02 amDave N. says:
Mainly because I overlooked them. They deserve to be included as well. I’ll throw Jonah Goldberg’s original column into the mix, too, if it will make you feel better. Since my original comment, I will also include the troll posting as “The Man Who Watches.” My criticism is directed at the graceless use of politics as if it is was somehow relevant to obscene behavior — regardless of who was doing it.
November 13, 2011, 2:14 amCornellian says:
I just read on Politico that ex-Penn senator Rick Santorum sponsored Jerry Sandusky for a “Congressional Angels in Adoption” award.
Definitely one of those “not such a great idea in hindsight” moments.
November 13, 2011, 2:17 amrilkefan says:
As noted in the other thread, it would be more accurate (unless there’s an actual quote of what Paterno said to the above effect) that the grand jury said that Paterno said McQueary said he saw x or y, not “according to Paterno[etc.], y”, and x is not per definition in the class y.
November 13, 2011, 2:28 amCharlieMack says:
Here is Jon Ritchie who is from Central Pennsyvania. Who was recruited by Sandusky. He knew Sandusky and McQreary.
http://search.espn.go.com/jon-ritchie-sandusky/
This guy gives the story perspective.
I work in a Casino, and I always say, “Everybody is a genius, after the hand is over.”
November 13, 2011, 2:30 amjukeboxgrad says:
whit:
The way I read it, the PA statute does work that way. But the testimony is that Sandusky did it both ways, which means he’s an alleged rapist regardless.
==================
dan:
Someone else who likes inventing his own facts. You’re discussing Victim 6, who is described on pages 18-20. There is no claim there about “an erect penis,” and there is no claim about sexual touching. You’re confusing Victim 6 with Victim 3 or Victim 5. They were later, and not relevant to the 1998 investigation.
Your opinion about what “any outside observer would see” is not what’s relevant. What’s relevant is the presence or absence of evidence that the statute was violated, which means sexual touching. Read the narrative on pages 18-20 and tell me where it establishes that the statute was violated.
What’s also relevant is that in 1998 there was no “outside observer.” In 2002 there was.
He admitted hearing from McQueary that Sandusky was “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” This is a description of sexual touching, which is a crime.
==================
roger:
Except that in 1998 there was no outside observer reporting that Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy. In 2002, there was an outside observer reporting that Sandusky was doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy, and that conduct is indeed “criminally actionable.” Or there is at least a strong chance that it’s “criminally actionable,” which means Paterno was obliged to call the police.
The action they took shows that they had no problem with the “criminally actionable” conduct as long as it happened elsewhere. They weren’t really trying “to stop the inappropriate behavior.” They were just trying to make sure it happened somewhere else.
If it gets 500 complaints about a man “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy,” then it needs to call the police 500 times.
==================
regan:
More baloney. The grand jury report describes 8 victims. Here’s a quick summary of the allegations:
1- oral sex
2- anal sex
3- sandusky touched the victim’s penis and hugged him from behind while having an erection.
4- oral sex, anal sex
5- sandusky pinned the victim against a wall, while having an erection. then he put the victim’s hand on his penis.
6- showered with the victim
7- showered with the victim
8- oral sex
In six of those eight, there is some form of sexual touching, which is much worse than “tickling” etc. So your claim about “the majority of the allegations” is more of your fiction.
I don’t care. What’s more relevant is the PA statute.
Feel free to find the old statute (if there is one) and demonstrate that it exonerates Sandusky et al.
If calling it rape is “just a quibble over words and their definitions” then you should explain why you have put so much effort into falsely claiming that there was no rape.
Except they aren’t ” ‘more’ of fondling behavior.” With at least 4 of the 8 victims, there is a claim of oral sex, anal sex, or both. That’s not “fondling.”
Not to an honest lawyer, because the words I cited (“there was slight penetration”) mean rape. Period.
November 13, 2011, 3:14 amwhit says:
“The way I read it, the PA statute does work that way. But the testimony is that Sandusky did it both ways, which means he’s an alleged rapist regardless.”
oh, absolutely. not disagreeing with that.
just clarifying that BOTH such acts are rape.
November 13, 2011, 3:20 amjukeboxgrad says:
rilkefan:
In the other thread you helpfully cited the relevant text: “the graduate assistant had seen Jerry Sandusky in the Lasch Building showers fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
You’re making a big deal about the words “fondling or.” Trouble is, “fondling” has no benign meaning in this context.
November 13, 2011, 3:23 amRicardo says:
What on earth are you talking about? Nobody is letting McQueary off the hook here but the fact that the witness himself did not contact the police does not in any exculpate the others who heard what he saw.
I’m not sure where your claim of 500 reports per year of sexual activity involving children comes from. Do you care to substantiate that with a reference or is this just uninformed hyperbole?
November 13, 2011, 3:45 amrilkefan says:
Fondle a cheek, fondle hair are common expressions – and fondle a child is very common (though certainly no one would use it in this context neutrally unless very naive, inept, or deceptive). And the words “fondle or” are the grand jury’s, presumably, not Paterno’s. Paterno could have said, “I was told he saw Sandusky stroking the child’s face and patting and rubbing his shoulders…” – that’s “fondling”, per several dictionaries I’ve checked – “… or else doing something of a sexual nature”. It’s not likely, but as I said in the other thread, I’d like some less second-hand data before deciding I’m sure how much to blame Paterno.
November 13, 2011, 3:50 amDan M. says:
THAT’S THE POINT. I don’t think anyone would describe bear-hugging a little boy from behind in the shower is anything other than something “of a sexual nature.” But even if Sandusky’s penis did come into contact with the boy, and even if Sandusky was pressed against the boy’s butt, CPS thought it was a “boundary” issue because there was no proof of Sandusky’s intent.
I understand that my opinion what about an outside observer would see is not what’s relevant; that’s what I was explaining, if you would pay attention. “Indecent assault” is a misdemeanor based on INTENT. That an outside observer would describe it as “sexual” doesn’t make it a crime. If Joe Paterno was under the impression that Jerry Sandusky crossed a line but did not do so for sexual gratification, then that would be an impression that Jerry Sandusky did something that was over the line and inappropriate but NOT A SEX OFFENSE. If Joe Paterno was uncertain about whether or not a crime occurred, and if, after discussing the matter with his superior, no criminal action was taken, then he might have assumed that they adequately looked into it and determined that it was not a crime, seeing as how he actually made an effort to put McQueary in touch with higher ups rather than saying to him “Don’t worry, I’ll take care of it.” If Joe Paterno had actually been interested in “covering up” this incident, then he would not have put McQueary into contact with Curley and Schultz. Now, make up your mind if “something of a sexual nature” is a crime, or if it only might be a crime.
And before you go off about some stupid conspiracy that Paterno put McQueary into contact with Curley and Schultz to tell McQueary to keep it quiet, don’t forget that no one other than Joe Paterno would have needed to tell McQueary to keep it quiet, since he was supposedly more powerful than the governor of Pennsylvania.
November 13, 2011, 3:51 amanon says:
Actually I find your priggishness and fight against humor the most offensive and bullshit post in here of all.
SHAME! SHAME ON YOU! SHAME!
November 13, 2011, 3:59 amRicardo says:
Nice strawman. Since you have apparently read the indictment, you know full well that Paterno arranged to meet Athletic Director Curley on the Sunday following the incident in question. It’s not at all clear Paterno “put McQueary into contact” with anyone — according to McQueary, Paterno was not present at the subsequent meeting McQueary had with Curley and Schultz.
You are just being silly (I won’t say “stupid”) in trying to have it both ways here. It is not disputed that Paterno met with Curley over the weekend to discuss the incident. If Paterno thought the incident was completely innocent, why did Paterno take time out of his Sunday to meet in person with his boss to speak about it? And if he didn’t think it was innocent, why not place a five-minute phone call to the police or order his employee McQueary to do so? There is no answer that makes Paterno look particularly good unless you think the grand jury completely misrepresented Paterno’s own testimony.
November 13, 2011, 4:12 amrilkefan says:
I was to some extent with you up to here, but I find this CT pretty plausible. Bracing McQueary with two other authority figures might have been smart in that scenario, or might be thought so given how upset McQueary presumably was. For one thing, Paterno isn’t immortal.
November 13, 2011, 4:13 amjukeboxgrad says:
rilkefan:
A 58-year old man is naked and alone in a shower with a naked 10-year old boy who is apparently not a family member. In our culture, there is no benign explanation for why he would be “stroking the child’s face and patting and rubbing his shoulders.”
As you agreed in the other thread, “he should have called the police.” We have enough information to reach that conclusion, and it’s an important conclusion.
==================
dan:
The words that have been cited (“fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) are enough to indicate that what was going on involved “sexual gratification.” If not as a certainty, then at the very least as a quite strong possibility.
I don’t need to. The point is that either way, Paterno needed to call the police.
November 13, 2011, 4:21 amDan M. says:
Yes, obviously, in hindsight, that would have been the best thing to do, of course. That’s not the point. The point is that while it’s popular to believe that this was some grand conspiracy to cover up child abuse by Joe Paterno and the rest of the university, there are reasonable explanations for the conduct of each person that doesn’t necessarily make anyone other than Sandusky morally culpable. I never suggested that Paterno thought the incident was completely innocent. I merely suggested that he thought the incident was perhaps something closer to “inappropriate” than to “criminal.” I fully believe that he met with Curley, and that they called Schultz, and Paterno told them the extent of what he knew and that they needed to speak with McQueary to get the full story. And it’s plausible that Joe believed from that point that it was taken care of, and reasonably assumed that it turned out to be nothing criminal because no criminal charges were ever filed.
Maybe, but McQueary would have listened to Paterno before he ever would have listened to either of the other two. And involving the president of the university and the head of Second Mile seems a bit absurd in furtherance of a conspiracy. It all just seems more tragic than morally culpable to me.
November 13, 2011, 4:54 amDan M. says:
Maybe. I probably wouldn’t have, even when I was a teacher, gone directly to police with second-hand information from a student or coworker regarding risk that an unknown child may have been subjected to questionable/inappropriate contact, especially if a friend of mine has been accused. I would talk to the counselor and to administrators and ask them to speak to the student/coworker about the issue and make a determination. And when it’s a kid outside the school system, whom I don’t know, that is at risk, I’m going to trust the admins to take care of it.
November 13, 2011, 5:43 amMichael F. says:
Wouldn’t that depend on whom you heard it from, and what he told you he observed? Paterno was told by a 28 year old graduate assistant and former quarterback of the team. That isn’t someone with any incentive to lie – if anything, quite the opposite. In addition, McQueary told the grand jury that he told Paterno he walked in on Sandusky in committing a sex act with a child. If he did indeed relay that information to Paterno, is it your position that Paterno should not have notified the police? Or even that he was justified in not doing so? Are you telling me you wouldn’t go to the police in that situation? Considering the source (McQueary had no incentive to make this up), the fact that McQueary claimed to have personally witnessed the crime (as opposed to noticing signs of abuse without any direct knowledge), and given Sandusky’s history, isn’t McQueary’s account credible enough that a reasonable person in Paterno’s position would conclude that the police should be notified?
November 13, 2011, 8:02 amdearieme says:
What reasons – other than money and power – might Paterno have had for not pursuing the matter? God knows what has yet to emerge.
November 13, 2011, 8:18 amJohn L. says:
I’m a mandated reporter (as were you, when you were a teacher) in New York State. I am required to report second-hand information, and not to my administrators but directly to the ACS hotline.
There are many times when I have to decide whether a particular case merits an ACS call, but that usually involves deciding when simple bad parenting rises to the level of actual neglect. In this case, there would have been no decision to make. Second-hand information that an identified man was having sex with an unidentified child would require an immediate call (ACS would refer it directly to the police).
Even in the more borderline cases, I use what I call the “New York Post Rule.” I imagine the worst-case scenario if I fail to make the call, and what the headline in the next day’s Post would be. Then make the call. That rule would have come in handy here.
November 13, 2011, 8:19 amragebot says:
I am still not convinced Paterno is not entitled to some flavor of a diminished capacity defense.
Lets not forget for more than a couple of years Paterno has “coached” sitting high atop the stadium in a sky box where Galen Hall (the offensive coordinator) also sits and calls the plays. On more than one occasion TV cameras have caught him nodding off. Unlike just about every other head coach I know of Paterno does not go the the locker room at halftime and give the team a pep talk. Over this period of time he has also had major operations to deal with multiple health problems. When asked how Paterno not being on the sideline for yesterdays game would affect the team Tom Brady replied not very much because Paterno had not been involved in the day to day operations for some time. In 2004 the Board of Trustees ask Paterno to resign because he was often portrayed by the press, coaches from other teams, and fans from other teams as not in touch.
Much of the analysis of McQueary includes the fact that he was a big strong well conditioned 28 year old former football player. Maybe when trying to figure out Paterno’s actions we should include the fact that he is now 84 years old and clearly not the man he was in years past both physically and mentally.
November 13, 2011, 8:38 amDebrah says:
“In failing to protect the interests of Sandusky’s victims, these men also failed to protect their own.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good.
I like that one, Jonathan!
November 13, 2011, 8:39 amPersonFromPorlock says:
November 13, 2011, 8:41 amerp says:
I read the new president of Penn State said the community should brace itself for more bad news to come.
Sorry I don’t have a link nor do I remember where I read it, but it’s hard to imagine what more bad news there could be.
November 13, 2011, 9:17 amJJ billings says:
I have read the various comments about why it was okay for Paterno to tell his boss, his nominal boss, and then do nothing else. I am not persuaded. To begin with, as many commentators have pointed out, the source is a reliable source. As I noted above, any defense of Paterno fails because he never sought resoultion, Pick a less serious crime. If the graduate assistant told Paterno he saw Sandusky breaking to a locker, it is hard to imagine Paterno just reporting it and never trying to figure out if it is true. Similarly, if Paterno had a report that Sandusky was getting high in the locker room. Just report it and move on. No way. Also, imagine if the graduate assistant told Paterno that he saw Sandusky repeating punching a woman in the face in the showers and she was crying. Would Paterno have spent the next eight years speaking with Sandusky, allowing him around the program, content that somebody somewhere decided not to do anything. Of course not. Somewhere in that eight year period Paterno would have done something to determine if Sandusky actually was punching the woman in the face, stealing from lockers, or getting high. Whatever should have been done in the short-term, calling the police or not, Paterno knew of a reliable report of a serious crime ocurring in his locker room, by a long time colleague. It is hard to imagine any other crime not resulting in the coach seeking resolution in the long term. That is the indefensible failing. Also, of course, the reasonable but not only inference is that unlike breaking into lockers, getting high, or punching a woman in the face, the charge of child molestation in the locker room was both likely representative of a longer trend and a detriment to the program, so it was buried.
November 13, 2011, 9:19 amLN says:
Sandusky started a charity for “at-risk” boys (i.e., boys you could probably get away with abusing) 34 years ago. So far the only news regarding Penn State is that
(a) someone reported a rape to Paterno in 2002 and no one contacted the police
(b) Sandusky was investigated in 1998 and no one prosecuted
I can see a million ways this story can get worse for Penn State.
November 13, 2011, 9:35 amloki13 says:
Not really. There are creative readings, where, in taking everything in the best possible light, you might make a case that there was no legal duty. Which is the job of their lawyers.
When this first broke, I tried to think of of ways in which Joe Paterno could not be a bad actor. He was, after all, always held out as a paragon of honor. After hearing more, and reading the grand jury report, it is very hard to come up with a credible moral defense. And given that the new keeps getting worse, I am glad that I am not one of the people grasping at straws defending the institution. Because I think that’s what caused the problem in the first place.
There’s a few separate issues-
1. Did Paterno and others commit a *legal* crime? Who knows? That will be grid by the courts.
2. Waas the school correct in firing him? Certainly. He has no right to hold his job. Coaches get fired all the time- for not getting enough wins, for not getting to the Bowl Game, for not beating their rival enough times. If this doesn’t warrant a firing, I don’t know what does.
And for those defending him, as yet more information comes out. Perhaps he was not legally responsible. Perhaps, instead of absolutely knowing, he just continued to turn a blind eye. It will be a while before we know. But if you were the parents of one of the one of the victims in the 2000s, knowing that Sandusky was using his Penn State connections to continue to abuse children… well, I can’t imagine you’ be drawing all favorable inferences for the people that continued to, at best, turn a blind eye.
I’ll leave that to their attorneys.
November 13, 2011, 9:45 amloki13 says:
There’s been more stuff, like the fact he was banned from holding his youth events on the Penn State campus (kinda sorta) after 2002.
Of course, we have to make all reasonable inferences. Like the fact that his surprise resignation after the 1998 investigation was because his play calling suddenly deteriorated.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there’s a huge number of “reasonable” inferences that have to be made nowadays?
November 13, 2011, 10:00 amSenX says:
It’s not like it happened in a vacuum either. The context is there was at least one prior data point of Sandusky involved in such behavior. To the point they had already take (pathetically weak) steps to remove him from situations where he could abuse children. It wasn’t “you are saying WHAT??!”. At best it was “Sandusky AGAIN?!” Am I wrong?
Frankly I am still trying wrap my head around someone doing what he did in the 90′s (even if not prosecuted) and still being allowed around so many children by the various authorities. Sigh, I guess I understand not wanting to ruin people’s lives around false accusations about such things but this seems a bit different. As we see above where a commentor attempts it; it is impossible to spin the naked and aroused shower fondling in a good light. At some point there is nothing plausable left in the “plausable deniability” of a situation.
Another aspect of this whole thing that still bothers me is the law there about only needing to report things like this to your superior. I keep thinking about this and the logic behind it. Seems to me its a horrible law and they would almost be better off without it. Won’t there always be some motivation existing in organizations to not want bad things about said organization to come out. That the higher up the organization you go in the power structure the incentive to minimize the damage might be greater.
The law seems to create an incentive for the witness to pass the buck into the hands of those who might be motivated to cover it up. INAL so I am probably missing something but from my perspective, ugh. When did this law go into affect and who was behind it?
November 13, 2011, 10:05 amragebot says:
My understanding is that in most places if you are walking down the street and see a crime you are under no legal (not moral, but legal) obligation to intervene or report it.
There are probably some exceptions like if you are LE, a teacher, and some limited others; but in general you can ignore bad stuff if you wish.
November 13, 2011, 10:53 amRoger says:
Yes, they are. The case against Penn State rests entirely on the credibility of a man who says he walked away from a child rape. McQueary gave his testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution and anonymity in the grand jury report. He has been let off the hook in the deal.
November 13, 2011, 11:22 amSteven J Fromm says:
I cannot agree more. There were multiple acts of cowardice here. The assistant coach who saw the act in the bathroom failed to step up. Most people would have screamed something like “What the heck are you doing. Get off that kid.” Where was the human and humane response here. Where is his sense of decency. As for Paterno, his response although legally correct, his behavior was far below moral standards. Where was the moral outrage here. No one stepped up to protect these innocent kids along this long and sad trail.
November 13, 2011, 11:26 amLN says:
Joe Paterno’s own testimony says that he was told that an old man was in the shower with a 10-year-old, doing things of a sexual nature, and he failed to notify the police. Nor did he direct MCQueary, an employee of his whom he has since promoted multiple times, to contact the police. This is Paterno’s own sworn testimony mind you.
Meanwhile Sandusky is facing 40 counts of sex crimes against minors. What exactly makes McQueary’s testimony not credible? The grand jury found him quite credible.
November 13, 2011, 11:27 amMalvolio says:
There’s a fair amount of “what would you do in that situation” going on and I thought I’d throw my experience of a not-entirely-different situation.
I was working for what is now Kodak Gallery. Its business model was simple. People would upload images or send us undeveloped 35mm film (back in 2004 people still used film) which we would develop and upload. We would store the images, share them, or make hard-copy. For every print we charged the user between 20¢ and $1.00 and that money was our main source of revenue.
The business model was simple but the business was not. There were perhaps 70 programmers for the website and for the “lab”, a converted warehouse with a dozen production lines printing the photos and mailing them out. About 20 of those programmers worked for me and I had a wide varieties of ancillary duties, including code review, process improvement, off-shoring, and for some reason, fighting child pornography.
In those days, there were not a lot of photo-sharing sites and pedophiles had learned early on that they could put their porn on our servers, saving both disk space and some risk of discovering. Every couple of month, we’d get a fax from local police or, more commonly, an angry spouse, and I get an email from the general counsel. I’d prepare a package for Kevin, our FBI contact (his full name was Kevin Smith, like the director, but it was a different movie reference that kept us from calling him “Agent Smith”) – the package was a DVD with all the images from the account and a file listing all the IP addresses that had accessed those images.
The only bright spot was that the porn was mostly the same. There were only a few hundred of the nightmarish images that the pedos apparently shared with each other. The FBI had names for each recognizable set.
One day I was passed a complaint from “BlueAngel2000″. Kodak offered a mechanism by which users could send email to other people, inviting them to come see their uploaded pictures on the web-site. The idea was the other people would either buy prints of those image or like the Gallery enough to upload their own pictures.
BlueAngel2000 had gotten such an invitation but she wasn’t going to be ordering any prints. She didn’t know the user who had invited her — some subtle username like “Boylvr” — and the first image in the series was of a boy, perhaps six or seven years old, naked and strapped spread eagle on a table. I had seen the set before and prepared the usual package for Keven.
Then I got to thinking: why had Boylvr, who was about to get an unfriendly visit from Kevin’s colleagues, sent the unwanted invitation to a stranger? I started coming through the database. The answer to the question was easy enough to find: Boylvr had previously invited someone named “BleuAngel2000″ to view other photo sets. He just mis-typed his friend’s name this time.
But BleuAngel2000 was one of more than 50 people Boylvr had invited, going back for months. None of them had complained. Two of them even had child porn of their own on Kodak accounts. More packages for Kevin.
I had an idea: perhaps it was a common feature of pedophiles was that they sent out lots of invitations. I jury-rigged a program to find users and evaluate their accounts. The photos were sorted according to how much flesh-tone each image contained. I found the proud parents of fat pink babies, avid teenagers who had industriously scanned in old Penthouses to pass around — and lots of pedophiles.
The pattern was clear: each ring would consist of a few lead accounts, where the porn would live and from which invitations would be sent to a more passive audience group of accounts. A few accounts belonged to multiple rings, even rings I hadn’t found before. The largest ring I found had 2600 members. The packages began to multiply.
Then I got an email from corporate counsel: my job was to respond to complaints about specific accounts and send the contents of those accounts to the FBI in accordance with Federal law. I was not not to proactively seek out offenders.
I went to the counsel’s office and argued with her for an hour: an argument that ended with her pointing out that my computer inevitably had child pornography on it and the only thing keeping me out of prison was her word that I had company and FBI approval for my work.
I went to my boss, VP on Engineering, who was sympathetic but more concerned about my career than about the pornography.
I went to her boss, Senior VP of something-or-other, who took me to an expensive lunch and told me over veal how important it was to “protect the brand” and that Kodak was breaking no laws.
I called the corporate ethics hotline and told the story to an answering machine. I got a call back from some office deep in the bowels of the Rochester, New York, corporate headquarters. The two functionaries on the phone were interested in my pornography-discovering program but little else.
Eventually, frustrated and disappointed, I took a vacation to think things over. From an Internet café overlooking the Bali Strait, I emailed in my resignation.
November 13, 2011, 11:29 amArthur Kirkland says:
Likely because the depravity and horror associated with the underlying circumstances overwhelms the senses, I have observed that the obvious political points that could be scored in this context have been ignored. I have seen little to no mention of the Paterno family’s politics and ostensible values, for example.
Unless you are arguing that calling for Penn State and its leaders to be held to account for systematic concealment of sexual abuse of children constitutes cheap political opportunism, what are you talking about?
November 13, 2011, 11:37 amjukeboxgrad says:
dan:
You have pointedly refrained from even trying to explain how it makes sense to interpret the cited words (“fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) as something other than criminal. And notice that I’m just relying on Paterno’s own testimony, not McQueary’s much more explicit testimony.
Except that it wasn’t “taken care of,” because the police should have been notified, and they weren’t. And Paterno surely knew, or should have known, that the police were never notified.
This is circular. “No criminal charges were ever filed” because Paterno et al decided to not notify the police. Even though they had reason to believe that a crime had probably occurred. They made a decision that there was “nothing criminal” even though this was contrary to the evidence they had been given.
It’s not absurd at all. There are the key people whose support you would need if you wanted the coverup to work. It was probably understood and expected that there would be more incidents like this, and there would need to be a concerted effort to sweep them all under the rug.
I’m glad you’re not a teacher anymore, and it sounds like you probably don’t understand the law (as John L has also explained). Laws regarding mandated reporting usually state that you are required to make an official report if you have reasonable cause to suspect a child has been abused. Period. Telling your boss isn’t good enough, unless you know he’s going to make the report for you. You have to make a report to an official agency or police, or cause such a report to be made. And it doesn’t matter if it’s “second-hand information,” as long as the information gives you reasonable cause to suspect a child has been abused. McQueary’s report to Paterno (that he saw Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) was sufficient to give Paterno reasonable cause to suspect a child had been abused.
Like I said, I’m glad you’re not a teacher anymore. Your personal relationship with the accused shouldn’t stop you from making the proper report. As whit has helpfully explained, if the accused is innocent then you’re probably helping them by encouraging a quick and thorough official investigation.
===============
SenX:
I realize there are people saying this, but I don’t think that’s a correct interpretation of the law. The PA statute is here (pdf). See page 230. Some important words are here: “shall report or cause a report to be made.” Here are some other important words:
I realize this is the kind of thing that lawyers can argue about, but I think the words “or cause a report to be made” indicate that I can tell my boss, and then he is under a legal obligation to report, but my own obligation does not end until he does the right thing. Because I must “cause a report to be made.”
===============
dearieme:
Those reasons could have been enough for him, but he probably also felt some sense of personal loyalty to Sandusky. Notice what Dan just said about “especially if a friend of mine has been accused.”
===============
ragebot:
I think this is a fair point, but we’re not just evaluating his actions now, at age 84. We’re evaluating what he did in 2002. Was he suffering from “diminished capacity” even then? We can only speculate, but there’s often a pretty big difference between 75 and 84.
That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about laws that specifically mandate the reporting of child abuse.
===============
erp:
Not really. I expect we will hear about more victims, and more witnesses who decided to look the other way.
===============
roger:
Is this speculation, or is it a known fact? If the latter, show us your proof.
November 13, 2011, 11:47 amArthur Kirkland says:
If I am ever on trial for murder of my avowed enemy, with a prosecution based on my confession (recorded and sent to police before the killing), seven witnesses (including the two police officers who apprehended me with my hand still holding the knife still plunged into the victim’s neck), several surveillance videotapes of the slaying (and the preceding ambush), and scientific evidence establishing that the victim’s blood had drenched my clothing . . . I now know who would be my first-round draft choice in jury selection. I also have a few names in mind for later rounds.
I expect additional revelations in the near to medium term to make the arguments of Penn State’s (and its leaders’) defenders even sillier than they currently are. Regardless of whether Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and others are charged or convicted, they deserve to be scorned and exiled. Unless and until Penn State stops protecting its image and finances at the expense of truth and morality, everything the school was, is, or could be will be imperiled, and properly so. So far, there is little evidence Penn State is attempting, or is capable of attempting, to do the right thing. When the Paterno statue is removed, and/or a football game is cancelled, and/or Penn State stops claiming it can handle the situation from within, and/or the files from the janitor-through-president incidents are released, it might become reasonable to conclude that Penn State has stopped thinking of itself and begun to value the interests of truth, morality, and the victims.
November 13, 2011, 11:56 amJohn Regan says:
apparently the FBI has not yet included it in its definition of “rape”
I don’t care. What’s more relevant is the PA statute.
The PA statute may be “more” relevant, but that doesn’t make other definitions irrelevant. What you “care” about is what’s irrelevant.
Feel free to find the old statute (if there is one) and demonstrate that it exonerates Sandusky et al.
I’m not attempting to “exonerate” anyone. I’m attempting, without success, to explain certain relevant distinctions to you. I can explain them for you. I cannot understand them for you.
Not to an honest lawyer, because the words I cited (“there was slight penetration”) mean rape. Period.
But the word “attempt” means attempted rape, not rape. The two are different, and inconsistent, though both are serious crimes. You’ll have to ponder these distinctions on your own time if you wish to do so.
Since you’re impervious to reason and keep rehashing the the same thing while mischaracterizing my position and selectively and misleadingly quoting both my responses and a 23 page grand jury report, it’s fair to conclude that you are engaged in trolling or some other dishonest or disingenuous behavior.
The only thing to do with a troll is disengage. Bye.
November 13, 2011, 11:59 amArthur Kirkland says:
Sounds like a severely malfunctioning moral compass, to the point at which it points south when aimed north.
November 13, 2011, 12:01 pmRicardo says:
Roger, one at a time. First, please provide evidence that Penn State “probably gets 500 complaints a year” about conduct of a “sexual nature” involving children occurring on university property. After supporting that assertion with a reference, then please support your allegation that McQueary received an offer of immunity and anonymity(!?) by prosecutors in exchange for his grand jury testimony.
November 13, 2011, 12:03 pmrilkefan says:
The benign explanation is that the child is upset for some reason not involving the adult and the adult is comforting him (in a creepy context): not a sexual assault. The benign explanation is that the child had been engaged in some football activity that left him with sore shoulders and the man was rubbing them in the hot water (in a creepy context): not a sexual assault.
And I think you want “should” in “he should have called the police” to do more work than it can by itself. The situation from what we know Paterno knew runs the gamut from Sandusky being stupid or terminally naive and best kept away from kids because he’s willing to get into situations most of us would tend to react to with a 2×4 to him being a monster.
Again, we know the grand jury says Paterno says he was told x or y, not that Paterno says y.
November 13, 2011, 12:09 pmjukeboxgrad says:
regan:
When did I say the other definitions are irrelevant?
No, that’s not what the word “attempt” means in this context. In this context, the word “attempt” means that there was an “attempt” at more than slight penetration. But the slight penetration is itself sufficient to indicate rape. I’m still waiting for you to explain how the cited words (“there was slight penetration”) are congruent with your claim that there was no rape.
More complete bullshit. You have shown no evidence of me ever “misleadingly quoting” anything. So you should either present evidence or withdraw that phony accusation.
Are you really done digging? I’ll believe it when I see it.
November 13, 2011, 12:10 pmRoger says:
Under the law, it is indeed extremely dangerous to do your own child porn investigation. Maybe the law should be changed, but Kodak had to accept the law as written.
November 13, 2011, 12:10 pmerp says:
Good for you. So your handle isn’t accurate. You’re really a bonvoglio. I hope things have gone well for you since then.
November 13, 2011, 12:12 pmerp says:
Good for you. So your handle isn’t accurate. You’re really a Bonvolio. I hope things have gone well for you since then.
November 13, 2011, 12:12 pmisland says:
“By Danae Blasso
Collegian Staff Writer
For the 10th year in a row, Penn State received a five-star rating — the highest score possible — on the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender-Friendly Campus Climate Index.
The Campus Climate Index, operated by Campus Pride, is a national tool used to assess campus life for LGBT students and their allies, said Brian Patchcoski, assistant director for the Penn State LGBTA Student Resource Center.
“I think it shows that we are doing a great job and shows that we can keep improving so that Penn State can keep reaching those benchmarks,” Patchcoski said.”
November 13, 2011, 12:17 pmrilkefan says:
Your enemy was walking up your driveway in the countryside carrying a shotgun as the neighbors watched in horror. You just got a voicemail from him saying that he thought you were away (though actually you were at home making dinner) and he was going to teach you a lesson by killing your family. You jumped out from behind the bushes where you had hidden and stabbed him with a paring knife.
November 13, 2011, 12:19 pmragebot says:
There have been questions about Paterno’s ability to function for quite some time. Certainly for the last five hears he has not performed duties normally associated with a head football coach at a major university. I know personally at his prime Bobby Bowden was often working 80+ hours a week, and the story was Jimmy Johnson thought Bowen was a slacker for not devoting enough time to the job. Bowen is several years younger than Paterno and was resigned by FSU at 75, so it is not out of the question that Paterno should have been resigned by PSU at that age. Of course this is all very much dependent on the individual.
The point I was trying to make, probably poorly, was that in general there is no obligation to report crime so even if the exceptions for LE, teachers, ect. was limited it was still more of a requirement than for the general public.
November 13, 2011, 12:29 pmjukeboxgrad says:
ragebot:
Fair enough. I agree with you that it’s reasonable to take this account.
November 13, 2011, 12:40 pmjukeboxgrad says:
rilkefan:
Let’s assume that I can grasp the idea of a 57-year old man “fondling” an unrelated 10-year old boy for the purpose of emotionally “comforting him.” What you haven’t done is explain the scenario where they end up doing this naked and alone in a shower.
In that case, the word would be “massaging,” not “fondling.” The difference in meaning is pretty significant.
You are again pointing out the words “fondling or,” but I have explained why those words are almost as bad as the other words, which follow (“doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”).
You are correct to point out that those words (“fondling or”) shouldn’t be ignored, but it’s equally important to not ignore the words which follow. The words which follow indicate that we shouldn’t leap to assume a benign interpretation of “fondled.” It’s not that it’s utterly impossible to imagine a benign explanation for “fondled.” The problem is that it’s not reasonable to treat any such explanation as the most likely explanation. Given the overall context, which includes the words which follow, and which includes Sandusky’s history, known by Paterno at the time.
November 13, 2011, 12:47 pmwolfefan says:
Hi Ricardo – neither Roger nor any members of his family have to substantiate anything they say. If either they or Jerome Corsi can conceive it, it must be true.
November 13, 2011, 1:04 pmRandy says:
Dave N. “Mainly because I overlooked them. They deserve to be included as well.”
Thanks. In times like these, I agree it’s important to not try to fit a particular factual scenario into one’s view of the world and cite it as evidence that you are correct. The incident here was a crime, nothing more, nothing less, and should be handled by the courts.
As for moral culpability, I think that we need some more facts, and I hope that PSU considered all facts and acted appropriately. If they did not, then ultimately someone has to take some degree of responsibility.
November 13, 2011, 1:23 pmtrash says:
I guess that makes perfect sense.
Other than McQueary’s grand jury testimony that he told Paterno what he saw and Joe Paterno’s grand jury testimony that McQueary told him, no evidence at all.
November 13, 2011, 1:35 pmFinal Thoughts on Penn State | Shall Not Be Questioned says:
[...] has been more than embarrassing. Hopefully the school will recover, and learn something from it. Jonathan Adler pointed out: The cowardice of some was no doubt motivated by a sincere desire to protect the reputation of the [...]
November 13, 2011, 1:36 pmArthur Kirkland says:
EXACTLY!! This is why I would need a Penn State defender on my jury! Otherwise, no one would overlook my videotaped confession, sent to the police before the murder occurred.
November 13, 2011, 1:39 pmrilkefan says:
Note that Paterno didn’t know (I presume) at the time of the report about the “unrelated” bit.
You mean, “… the correct word to use…” Because that’s at issue too. It’s hard for me to even construct a conversation between M and P that makes standard sense – “S is raping a child not related to him, so I came to tell you” is hard for me to even type, and it doesn’t sound plausible – less plausible anyway than “I saw S in the shower with a kid and he may have been hugging him and caressing his face, which really upset me because I was abused as a child so I split before I could see if there was something worse going on, which there might have been” which the jury (knowing y to have been the case from M) rendered as x or y.
Happily no one in the conversation is doing so, because we’re all clear that saying not (p->q) doesn’t mean not p and not q.
In further “not my universe” news,
.
November 13, 2011, 1:54 pmrilkefan says:
Funny that you think calling the police when you receive a threat and saying you’re going to kill the guy coming to kill your family when he steps on your porch is a problem, esp. in the moral context. Did you go to Penn State?
November 13, 2011, 2:01 pmjukeboxgrad says:
This is more Occam’s Razor stuff. As LN just pointed out on the other thread, “McQueary’s family was close with Sandusky’s family.” If the boy was a family member, McQueary would have recognized him, and this would have been part of what he reported.
“It doesn’t sound plausible” only if you think child abuse isn’t “plausible.”
Given Sandusky’s history, that would also require a call to the police, so I don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing with this alternate text.
Sorry, this is getting a little too abstract and symbolic for me to follow. Regular sentences might work better.
I’m lost here too.
November 13, 2011, 2:07 pmSammy Finkelman says:
Let’s be real.
If this had been more fully followed up, it would have been covered up just like the 2000 case, seen by a janitor who now has dementia,
or the 1998 case, which got much further before disappearing.
Sandusky must have been really scared in 1998.
But the case was taken under the personal control of the Centre County DA, Ray Gricar and faded away. Ray Gricar either committed suicide, or more likely, was killed, and his laptop destroyed, with his body, although not his car and cellphone, completely
vanishing, on or about Friday April 15, 2005.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12756052 and http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/sports/ncaafootball/questions-on-sandusky-wrapped-in-2005-gricar-mystery.html?scp=1&sq=gricar%20laptop&st=cse
Anything reported about Sandusky before Ray Gricar disappeared likely would have been covered up.
There are things funny about that 1998 case, including claims that Ralph Ralston, who worked for the State College Police force, being more involved in the investigation than he was. It was campus police Detective Ronald Schreffer who really was the only investigator, and who may have falsely claimed that Ralph Ralston was present at an interview with the boy’s mother. Schreffer and his current wife now refuses to talk to the press. (his former wife gave some biographical details to the New York Times)
I would venture to say that Gerald Lauro, the investigator for the state welfare department, probably never got to talk to the boy until after the boy’s mother had been paid off, which is the most likely assumption. The grand jury never got to the bottom of most of this.
The case that started all of this was reported in 2008. They seem to think that Sandusky’s activities stopped sometime in 2009. For at least two more years they’ve been investigating this.
And now, they release an indictment finally on Saturday, November 5, 2011, and people are supposed to get all excited and react the next day??
November 13, 2011, 2:18 pmDan M. says:
It appears that in WV my duty was not limited to students at the school, or that I came across in the scope of my employment. It was limited in no way whatsoever. Any reasonable suspicion of neglect or abuse, straight to CPS. Bullshit. If I reported to CPS, or to the principal or counselor, every child that I spoke to on a regular basis that had worthless parents who didn’t take care of their kids properly, CPS wouldn’t have had time to investigate all the kids that were getting molested by their siblings or their mom’s boyfriends or their foster parents. Oh, foster parents! Let’s investigate Mom and Dad because we think they might smack their kids every now and then, and while we’re investigating, let’s kidnap the kids and place them in the Sandusky home where they’ll be safe!
I think Paterno wasn’t told the whole story for some reason or another, and gave Sandusky the benefit of the doubt that he wasn’t engaged in a criminal act, not because of his value to the program (none, at the time) but because of what he knew of the man up to that point. Nevertheless, he reported his concerns to Curley and Schultz and recommended that they discuss the incident with McQueary to figure out if action needs to be taken. Curley and Schultz then spoke to McQueary, who for some reason couldn’t bring himself to describe the full situation to them, either, and they were able to resolve amongst themselves that nothing criminal actually happened, not callously or maliciously, but because McQueary had convinced himself already that he hadn’t really seen what he thought he saw. Curley and Schultz take the only action they think is available to them, but in the mean time inform the head of Second Mile that there was an inappropriate situation and inform the president. Then, later, McQueary gets questioned about the incident (who broke the pact of silence and led investigators to the original witness???) and reconstructs, perhaps somewhat inaccurately, what he thinks that he saw, and believes that he explained himself 9 years ago. And no one is deliberately lying to investigators except Sandusky.
But it would be tragic for the people who love a narrative if there were no conspiracy, and if this were merely a tragedy.
My actual conspiracy theory is that the trustees saw an opportunity to keep Paterno from picking his successor and took it, knowing full well that Paterno was not to blame for any of this situation. But I admit I am speculating, of course.
November 13, 2011, 2:22 pmrilkefan says:
I thought this was clear, but I’m not arguing what happened, but what Paterno knew at the time from what we knew.
The point is, no sane person says he saw an ongoing rape and did nothing (under most conceivable circumstances).
It’s not worth following up on the logic, just that I think it’s absolutely clear I’m not arguing “fondle” is per se an anodyne word. And re “not my universe”, where I live the classroom doors are locked and all visits are logged.
November 13, 2011, 2:42 pmSenX says:
ragebot : “My understanding is that in most places if you are walking down the street and see a crime you are under no legal (not moral, but legal) obligation to intervene or report it.
There are probably some exceptions like if you are LE, a teacher, and some limited others; but in general you can ignore bad stuff if you wish.”
I get that and agree with it (I am not even comfortable with being forced to be a witness against my will though I have been somewhat convinced by previous posts here that it might be a necessary sacrifice of freedom).
Let me see if I can put my finger better on what I don’t like about this law. I fear it might be worse than having no law on the books regarding this and letting people do as you say above when seeing any crime. Unless JB is correct on its interpretation that is.
1. Without the law individuals cannot so easily wash their hands of it. If you are the only one that sees something anyway, you aren’t going to get in trouble for not reporting. I think it’s the moral obligation that causes (even McQueary) to report such things, not fear of legal reprisal if they didn’t.
2. Then the law really just provides the vector by which the moral obligation is disposed.
November 13, 2011, 2:43 pmMalvolio says:
No amount of evidence, unrebutted, amounts to a certainty. That’s why we have police, courts, lawyers, and so on. Even then, the best they can hope for is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not “beyond any possible doubt”.
That’s why all this talk of “hearsay” and “lines of responsibility” is such bullshit.
McQueary should have physically intervened. He should have pounded Sandusky into insensibility, rescued the victim, and then called for police and two ambulances. I can understand why he might have been just too surprised by events to do that.
However, shock and surprise has to wear off eventually. If McQuery didn’t call the police immediately, he should have as soon as he calmed down. If he didn’t call, Paterno should have, Curley should have. How many people knew about this and didn’t pick up the phone and dial three numbers? The details of their legal culpability may depend on accidents of wording in the law, but there isn’t the tiniest shred of doubt about their moral culpability.
Apparently, Paterno wondered aloud to a Sports Illustrated reporter about why Sandusky was spending so much time on his “charity”. The first time he heard these rumors — which seems to have been long before the incident with McQueary — the penny should have dropped and Paterno and everyone else who knew Sandusky should have admitted to themselves what was going on.
Now, I am given to understand there is some possibility that the NCAA is going to allow Penn State to continue to compete in football. Again, there may be some accident in the wording of their bylaws that allows them to do this, but there’s no way they can do it morally. Senior officials of the team and of the school connived at the rapes of scores of young children just to the football program reputation’s tidy.
If they do allow Penn State to continue playing without interruption, if they refuse to cauterize the infection, as Paterno and Curley refused, the moral rot consumes them as well — and it taint anyone who watches.
November 13, 2011, 2:48 pmDan M. says:
Yeah, anyone who would hesitate to rip apart a trusted friend’s family over unclear second-hand allegations has a severely malfunctioning moral compass! Get those kids out of my friend’s home and place them with the Sanduskys while you investigate! What a great idea! http://liftingtheveil.org/foster04.htm
‘In this “exemplary” program, 24 percent of the girls responding to a survey said they were victims of actual or attempted sexual abuse in the one home in which they had stayed the longest.’
Trust the state to always do the best thing for the children!
November 13, 2011, 2:49 pmSenX says:
Sigh it posted by accident. I wanted to put :
2. Then the law really just provides the vector by which the moral obligation is disposed.
November 13, 2011, 2:56 pma. I don’t like the vector (management inside the organization of the abuser).
b. I don’t like the law enabling individuals to get off so easy on their moral obligation. What did they call this law, “Pass the .uck”? I also faintly think there is something disturbing in it that it improperly guides people to a result that surely will not be healthy for them mentally. I did what the law said and my boss will handle it, that is what is appropriate. The law can say it but I wonder psychologically if that is even doable. All cannot be Malvolio and so maybe this law creates another tortured mind must constantly agonize over the fact that they did the right thing legally but did they do enough morally?
Fifth-rate miler says:
This sounds about right to me.
November 13, 2011, 3:17 pmadjunct says:
Jukeboxgrad,
I think, in the midst of the fine analytical work you’ve done here, you’ve made an error with regard to understanding the reporting requirement under PA law.
As you cite, the law provides, for staff of an institution, that they can satisfy their reporting requirement by “immediately notify[ing] the person in charge” of the matter. Once that is done, “the person in charge or the designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibility and have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made.”
What that means is that legally, once McQueary/Paterno reported the matter to the “person in charge” or a “designated agent,” their legal responsibility was fulfilled under the PA law. The “person in charge” upon being notified, “assume[s] the responsibility and ha[s] the legal obligation” from then on.
I realize you “think the words ‘or cause a report to be made’ indicate that the staff member’s “own obligation does not end until he does the right thing [b]ecause [he] must ’cause a report to be made.’” But that’s not the right reading of the statute. The person in charge, or his/her agent, upon notification, assumes the responsibility to report or cause a report to be made. Not the staff member.
Thus, in news today, the PA governor has been saying that the law needs to be changed to broaden the reporting requirement. Maybe that will come to pass, but, for now, this law doesn’t seem to have the teeth to get McQueary/Paterno assuming they reported it internally to the “person in charge” or the “designated agent.”
November 13, 2011, 3:28 pmDan M. says:
You think a teacher should call CPS about a kid before talking to the administration? Don’t you think the school counselor and the administration might have information that I’m not privy to? And if I am going to check with them, anyway, and if I trust them, why should I have any suspicion that they would attempt to cover it up?
November 13, 2011, 3:57 pmragebot says:
Disclaimer: I am no fan of the NCAA.
That being said the NCAA’s basic function is to have school’s athletic teams compete on an even playing field. Things like not enticing players to play for a school with money, cars, women, or the like. Things like students having to attend class and get passing grades. Nothing Sandusky, Paterno, McQueary, or anyone else at PSU did really gave PSU an unfair advantage over other schools from this perspective.
I have made the analogy that OJ did not get any jail time when Goldman won his civil suit. This was not because of some accident in wording. Rather it is due to what the NCAA sees its function as.
In fact PSU had a reputation for strictly following all NCAA rules, or at least following them better than most other schools. One of those rules allows NCAA member schools to determine if a student charged with a criminal offense can play. When a PSU tight end was charged with raping a female (over 18 years of age) Paterno allowed him to play in a bowl game; which was no violation of NCAA rules.
It is worthy of note that the PSU administration does have the option of eliminating the football program; something which the new prez has indicated will not happen.
November 13, 2011, 4:10 pmMalvolio says:
If you are suggesting that because that government is incompetent or clumsy, that Paterno (or Penn State generally) should have performed some sort of internal investigation before turning the matter over to city authorities, well, you may have an arguable point.
But given that no such investigation was attempted, that Paterno and Curley actively conspired to conceal the crime, making that point now seems like poor timing and in any case, a poor defense of the Penn State officials.
If instead you are suggesting that because that government is incompetent or clumsy, that Paterno and Curley were right in concealing the crime, then you are at best an idiot.
November 13, 2011, 4:17 pmBenjamin G Davis says:
Anyone know the race of the “at risk” kids molested/raped by this s.o.b.? I have seen a thread that says they were 10-12 year old slim black boys. Not seen any mention of race in the mainstream press but am curious how race and class operated in this space.
November 13, 2011, 4:35 pmBest,
Ben
Dan M. says:
Oh, so you have actual evidence that Paterno and Curly actively conspired to conceal the crime, eh? Whom did they hire to clean the locker room of semen stains? Who tracked down the kid and his mother to make sure they didn’t talk? Who paid off McQueary’s father to not go public? Did they just go to Schultz and Spanier to make sure they could get hush money from outside the athletic department? And why did they contact Second Mile to inform its director of the situation?
Of course my point is that I’m going to examine other avenues and the best interests of all parties involved before I would ever go to the police or child protective services.
November 13, 2011, 4:43 pmMalvolio says:
They testified they had meetings to discuss what to do, and what they did was not report a crime to the cops. That’s conspiracy. I don’t know whether they committed any of the other crimes you mentioned, but those would be additional crimes.
As I say, I don’t know if these turds are going to “walk between the raindrops”. Perhaps, despite being employees of an educational institution that includes many minors, they aren’t obligated under applicable law to report allegations of child abuse, or perhaps since the victims probably weren’t students at the same school, their abuse didn’t count. I don’t know, I haven’t been admitted to the Pennsylvania bar.
What I do know, sure as I’m sitting here, is that none of that mattered to the conspirators. Not the amount of evidence, not their legal obligations, certainly not their moral obligations. Everyone of them could have witness with their own eyes Sandusky sodomizing an entire elementary school’s worth of children and they would have acted exactly as they did.
To paraphrase somebody, “oh, so you have actual evidence that Paterno or Curley or anyone else examined any other avenues or considered the best interests of any parties but themselves?”
November 13, 2011, 5:31 pmDennisN says:
No, if they were to do their job, and that’s a big IF, they would interview the witness. That’s called running down leads.
Now, Mr Regan cites cases where local police have protected prominent citizens and attacked the accuser. This would be a significant risk, as Sandusky was such a prominent citizen. Paterno, however, was THE prominent citizen. They would have taken him seriously, if only to cover their butts. They would have a great incentive to do their jobs meticulously and well. The last thing they would want to do would be to get caught between two fighting elephants. They’d have to do their job to protect their butts. Always count on people protecting their butts.
November 13, 2011, 5:34 pmDan M. says:
Horseshit. You don’t have any real evidence that this was anything more than a tragic misunderstanding and failure to communicate, other than conflicting testimony where the grand jury is led by the prosecutor to believe a key witness more than two people that they are charging without sufficient evidence or statutory authority.
I don’t even have undisputed evidence that they knew what allegedly happened. Neither do you.
November 13, 2011, 5:39 pmptt says:
Poor guy. Fifteen years is a long time to be “distraught”.
November 13, 2011, 6:03 pmSenX says:
Dan M. : “Of course my point is that I’m going to examine other avenues and the best interests of all parties involved before I would ever go to the police or child protective services.”
Inherent in that statement is that at some point IF you determined the best interests of the child being raped were not being considered properly, then you would go to the police or CPS.
I think it is impossible to make the argument that in this story the children’s interests were valued properly. Hence the quick judgements and outrage.
November 13, 2011, 6:08 pmThe Man Who Watches says:
Let me get this straigth Ragebot. You care more about a child’s game than the future of the United States of America. No wonder we are in the difficult times we face as a nation. Sports are for children. Politics are for adults. You better start paying attention, becase as history has shown in a democracy the populace is responsible for the acts of its government. In short pay attention or you just may be paying the price for the government’s indiscretions. I am not a troll. I was merely pointing out the obvious.
November 13, 2011, 6:35 pmDan M. says:
But there was no child to question, and perhaps no understanding that a criminal act had occurred.
It took several accusations and years of investigation before a convincing case was established against Sandusky, and several reports of allegations before those closest to him could genuinely believe that he was capable of such a thing.
Now, until I have clear evidence that Joe Paterno or the administrators at Penn State knowingly neglected to report an assault of a child to appropriate authorities, I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think McQueary is a liar, but I do think he was traumatized, and I don’t know that I trust his specific account of events. I just don’t see any real motive that I would recognize in a fundamentally decent person to not report a heinous offense except for a concern over a friend combined with a lack of an understanding that a heinous offense actually occurred.
November 13, 2011, 6:40 pmDennisN says:
cindi
Talk is cheap.
Talk after the fact is particularly cheap.
So is remorse.
If this had been something he really cared about, like the condition of the grass in the stadium, he would have been on it like white on rice.
Anon
That may be a thread winner.
BL
That may have been one of the things deterring McQueary. It’s been said above that he once physically intervened and broke up a knife fight, so he was not a coward in that instance, but cowardice and bravery are very temporal conditions. McQueary highly respected Sandusky, and Sandusky was his boss. In addition to having one of his ideals shattered, he was looking at not only losing his job, but probably his career. No school would ever allow him to so much as sweep the floors. This is a big bunch of shock. And he would have been risking a lot for an outcome that was by no means clear cut.
But it was said above that the victim saw McQueary. To have looked in the face of a ten year old rape victim and do nothing … If I had done that, afterwards I’d be considering shooting myself.
He had a chance to demonstrate his humanity and he failed.
John L.
This is what I meant when I referred above to always counting on people to cover their butts. In this case, it’s usually a good thing. I’m not attacking you here, merely using your statement as a stepping stone.
Dan M.
When I was a mandated reporter, a thousand years ago, I and my friends had considered this dilemma. We’ve all read the horror stories and heard the awful anecdotes. We didn’t particularly trust the authorities to do the right thing. The law is one thing. Not doing harm is another thing, one that may supersede the law. (Yeah, I know. Guilty as charged.) A couple of friends and I decided informally, that we would want to have a strong level of articulable suspicion before we pulled the whistle cord.
I thank God I never had to test that theory.
November 13, 2011, 6:52 pmMDT says:
Dan M.,
But there was no child to question, and perhaps no understanding that a criminal act had occurred.
There was no child to question because McQueary did not interrupt the rape; and I refuse to believe that a 28-year-old graduate student at a major university saw a middle-aged man pegging a ten-year-old child in the butt in a shower and did not understand that “a criminal act had occurred.” I mean, I do understand that college students are supposed, popularly, to be all innocence; but no one is as innocent as that. He knew exactly what he was seeing, and elected not to see it. Or to do anything about it at the time.
November 13, 2011, 7:15 pmDan M. says:
I’m not excusing McQueary, except to suggest that he only froze because of whom he saw, who up to that point he had understood to be a saint. And that perhaps McQueary was, for some time, too traumatized to actually describe what he saw, and maybe even convinced himself that he didn’t see it. Until I have more evidence, I’m not going to condemn Joe Paterno for doing what should have seemed like a sensible thing for him to do IF it is confirmed that he was not under the impression that a heinous crime had occurred. I’m not inclined to assume the worst of people who have earned the benefit of the doubt.
November 13, 2011, 7:24 pmElliot says:
Let’s say a real estate attorney learns of client conduct during a discussion about real estate in the attorney’s office, and he determines will not cause death or substantial bodily harm. He does not report it. If this is acceptable, are we not opening the door to other rationalizations for remaining silent?
I’d expect someone might contend that if lawyers can exempt themselves from a common ethical and moral responsibility to report because of reasons lawyers find compelling, others might also find compelling reasons to rationalize not reporting.
How about clergy? Psychologists? Are there circumstances under which they are not obligated to report?
November 13, 2011, 7:25 pmpoet demeritus says:
Allegedly Touched
Perhaps criminally touched and molested as a child
but certainly touched and sick in the head
a fine man allegedly touched vulnerable children
who forever would be touched by manipulation and dread.
Unwitting adults were touched by this generous man’s outreach
but allegedly some realized he touched kids a little too much
and this touched a nerve about people’s well-being
they were worried sick they’d be touched by scandal and such.
So, allegedly they touched wood and all the right bases
to protect themselves and the author of Touched
charges got beat down and the coach’s image touched-up
everybody was touched by his resignation quite rushed.
Meanwhile, young boys allegedly got touched by the Emeritus “player”
tho’ later his touched-downs would have to go off-campus
btw, hear about the DA and his laptop touched by destruction?
he allegedly knew someone touched boys with a sporting male presence.
Finally, a certain former coach has been touched by the long arm of the law
November 13, 2011, 7:37 pmwhich has touched a sore spot with fans who’ve always hoorayed
frustrated, they rushed a phantom opponent, even touched off a riot
don’t they know the game isn’t football, when lies are skewered and their legends touchéd?
MDT says:
Dan M.,
I’m not excusing McQueary, except to suggest that he only froze because of whom he saw, who up to that point he had understood to be a saint. And that perhaps McQueary was, for some time, too traumatized to actually describe what he saw, and maybe even convinced himself that he didn’t see it.
Damn, Dan, I was through my graduate coursework by that age, and I didn’t think any of my professors was “a saint.” And had I seen any of them raping a child, I would damned well have reported it. To the police. Immediately. After trying to stop the rape; but I’m no football player. I can claim decent walking legs, but upper body strength … sorry, no.
November 13, 2011, 7:43 pmmartha says:
Well, I’ve been reported to CPS (by an overzealous, brand-new teacher with no common sense who is thankfully no longer in the classroom). What happened to my family wasn’t as bad as what happened to this poor guy. But it was bad enough. It started with a social worker and sheriff’s deputy showing up at our house and repeatedly threatening to take our children away–in front of the children. I still cry when I think about it, years later. So I “get” what people are saying when they don’t want to make unfounded CPS reports. An investigation can cause harm all on its own.
But I still think someone at PSU should have made that call after what McQueary (or the janitor) reported.
November 13, 2011, 7:44 pmDennisN says:
martha
No argument there. What he is reported to have seen far surpasses strong articulable suspicion, and rises to moral and legal justification for deadly force.
November 13, 2011, 8:51 pmjcc says:
@ Dan M -
“Of course my point is that I’m going to examine other avenues and the best interests of all parties involved before I would ever go to the police or child protective services.”
I do not expect you to acknowledge this, but this statement is not only repehensible, but a potential criminal violation in some states. Failing to make a timely notification – resulting in the loss of physical evidence and creating a suspect said/victim said situation – is probably why the original cases were never prosecuted. Troubled youngsters make the best victims for pedophiles, because they can be inherently unbelievable. One of the worst failures in this sorry episode is the failure of adults to act quickly to protect not only the victim seen in the shower, but all those to follow since the suspect was not stopped for nearly another decade.
It is not up to you to susbstitute your amateur vision for that of experts who do this kind of thing every day, and are ostensibly trained for it. If you really think you’re that good at sex crime investigations, go get a job with the local police. Once you get 5 or 10 years of experience under your belt, plus some formal training and then more on-the-job under the supervision of someone senior, then you too can be a sex crimes detective. Whatever you have done in life does not qualify you to examine and determine anything when it comes to allegations of sexual assault upon a minor child.
“…the best interests…”
It’s pretty arrogant of you to suggest you should be the arbiter of this.
“…all parties involved…”
Sorry, but the molested children get priority. Suspects don’t get to assert their well-being as a bar to investigation. In fact, the best solution to a potentially false accusation is an immediate and thorough investigation, including the collection of physical evidence.
November 13, 2011, 9:30 pmDan M. says:
Of course, I’ve acknowledged that. I was a mandatory reporter. So throw me in jail for using my discretion. We’re not all perfect. Sometimes I drive my car above the speed limit, too, creating a higher risk that I’ll wreck my car and kill somebody’s child. It happens. “If it saves one life” doesn’t fly with me.
Thanks for the tip. Surely you realize that mandatory reporting statutes go far beyond sex crimes. West Virginia teachers are mandated to report to CPS when they have cause to believe that any child is being abused or neglected. That’s a hell of a lot of kids to be calling CPS about. It sure seems like I need to use my discretion to determine what is “neglect” or “abuse” that is worthy of reporting. Rape? No question, obviously. But who knows if Joe Pa had any indication that a rape occurred? I sure don’t.
Thanks for all of the unnecessary advice, once again. It’s not really relevant to what I was talking about. Obviously if I have a credible witness reporting a rape to me, I’m going to contact the appropriate authorities. My analysis of the situation presumes that Paterno is telling the truth that he was never under the impression that a crime had necessarily taken place and that Curley and Schultz may be telling the truth that McQueary did not describe to them what happened. I will state unequivocally that anyone who was made aware that a rape may have occurred had a moral duty to call the police, including McQueary, his father, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Raykovitz.
But, yeah, suspects do have rights, though you may be loathe to hear it. There’s a thing called due process in this country, unless you recommend we start waterboarding parents to get confessions of child abuse from them.
November 13, 2011, 10:03 pmragebot says:
You seem to have confused me with someone else. I have no idea what you are talking about.
November 13, 2011, 10:04 pmwhit says:
it’s not a big “if” at all.
if you call up the police , give your NAME and say that (and give his name) another person told you that they witnessed a sex assault of a 10 yr old between (name given) and a 10 yr old (whether or not name given),
AT A MINIMUM … the cops would contact the person that you claimed told you he witnessed it
considering the NATURE of the alleged crime, i can guarantee you that would happen
November 13, 2011, 10:13 pmwhit says:
“In fact, the best solution to a potentially false accusation is an immediate and thorough investigation, including the collection of physical evidence”
EXACTLY.
and again, if he was merely taking a shower with the kid, while i am sure the parent of the kid would find that inappropriate, it may very well not have been ANY crime whatsoever.
but again, if there was a RAPE , and clearly any penetration of the kid would have been rape… 10 yrs old doesn’t even begin to get into questions of “consent”, then there very well may have been physical evidence
and a LACK of physical evidence would help… wait for it… EXONERATE the suspect.
also, a good thing
it’s a win/win either way
November 13, 2011, 10:17 pmjukeboxgrad says:
adjunct:
You’ve convinced me that I was reading the statute incorrectly, so thanks for the correction. And thanks also for the compliment.
=================
ragebot:
According to their “Core Values” statement, NCAA “shares a belief in and commitment to … the highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.” An institution harboring a pedophile is not congruent with any concept of integrity. So Malvolio is correct to raise the question about what NCAA should do now.
=================
rilkefan:
We know what he knew at the time (at minimum), based on his own testimony. And even though the word “fondling” can have a benign meaning, it was not reasonable for him to select any such benign meaning as the most likely meaning, in this context.
That’s like saying ‘no sane person could harbor a monster like Sandusky for so many years.’ But Paterno et al did just that. So McQueary’s shabby behavior that night is not terribly different. And McQueary has various defenders who point out correctly that what he did is not precisely “nothing.”
It’s definitely not anodyne in this context, but that seems to be what you were arguing.
I know there are places like that, but I don’t get the relevance.
November 13, 2011, 10:52 pmjukeboxgrad says:
dan:
The law requires you to make a report of every single instance you hear about, if it corresponds with the standards set by the law. Heavy workloads at CPS are their problem, not your problem. They know how to do triage, and you are breaking the law if you take it upon yourself to do the triage yourself. (And I realize that jcc made much the same point.)
No one said that, but you need to not let that turn into a delay, because the law requires the report to be prompt. As jcc explained so well, you are potentially creating a big moral and legal problem if you take matters into your own hands and create a delay.
When months or years go by and little or nothing has been done, and the police have not been notified, your passive reaction at this point makes you part of the “attempt to cover it up.”
You keep acting like all we have is McQueary’s testimony. Trouble is, that’s not all we have. The grand jury report says this: “Schultz conceded that the report that graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky.” Even if you completely discount McQueary’s testimony, we have Schultz admitting that he heard a report about “inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky.” We also have Schultz admitting that what he heard was “disturbing.” We also have Schultz admitting he knew about the 1998 investigation, which was also about “inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky.”
We also learn from the report that no one from the University, including Schultz, ever “attempted to learn the identity of the child in the shower in 2002.”
Aside from what Schultz admitted, we also have Paterno testifying that he told Curley that Sandusky had been seen “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” Curley and Schultz deny hearing about anal sex from McQueary, but do they deny hearing the words I just cited from Paterno? I can’t find a place where they issue any such denial. So to get Curley and Schultz off the hook, you have to discount not only McQueary’s testimony but also Paterno’s testimony. Because the latter is enough to establish that they (or at least Curley) heard a report about Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
How can you call this just “a tragic misunderstanding and failure to communicate?” Imagine that you are Schultz. You are aware of “inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky” in 1998, and now you hear a “disturbing” report of more “inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky.” You probably also hear from Paterno and/or Curley about Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
And despite all this, you make no attempt whatsoever to locate or identify the child, to make sure he’s OK, to hear his side of the story, or to find out if Sandusky is still abusing him. And you refrain from notifying the police, so that they might do those necessary things, even though you oversee the University Police as part of your job.
This fits your picture of responsible behavior? Really?
A couple of people have made the important point that examining the boy promptly would probably be helpful to Sandusky, if he’s innocent. By showing a lack of interest in any such investigation, Schultz is suggesting that he knew an investigation would turn up bad news for Sandusky and, hence, the school.
We don’t “have undisputed evidence” that they heard a report about anal rape. However, we do have undisputed evidence that they heard a report about “inappropriate sexual conduct” that was “disturbing,” and that involved Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” We also have undisputed evidence that they nevertheless made no effort to identify or interview the child, or notify the police.
This is enough to establish a big problem, and this is before we consider that McQueary’s testimony makes matters much, much worse.
I just explained why Curley and Schultz have a problem even if you assume McQueary’s testimony can’t be trusted.
Only because they made no effort to identify and locate the child. This alone is an enormous failure on their part.
That’s because the people around him did such a good job of protecting him, and keeping the police away.
They didn’t “believe that he was capable of such a thing” because they chose to look the other way. Schultz made no effort to obtain and review the 1998 University Police report on Sandusky, even though he was aware of that investigation, and even though he oversees the University Police. This is another example of blatant irresponsibility and neglect on his part.
According to Paterno’s own testimony, he heard a report about Sandusky “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” Do you consider that to be something other than “a heinous offense?”
Please explain why it’s reasonable to assume that the cited words (“fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) are a description of something other than a crime.
November 13, 2011, 10:59 pmDan M. says:
jbg:
What I do care about is ripping families apart for no positive benefit. I think the calculus is quite different between “suspected abuse or neglect” and an eyewitness report of sexual assault. As far as the law is concerned, there are lots of laws I’m rather indifferent to.
Assuming that I’m aware that something serious happened.
Yes, Schultz should have been the one to contact police to investigate inappropriate sexual conduct that according to his understanding may or may not have been criminal, and in investigating the situation, he should not have presumed that Sandusky did not act with the intent of sexual gratification. Police should have been called, ultimately. But Schultz is the one who should have ultimately made that determination, particularly with any knowledge of the 1998 situation. That’s absolutely a responsibility of an administrator. In hindsight, a terrible call on his part. Willful? I don’t know.
I do believe that if anyone abdicated a responsibility, it was absolutely Schultz. But I do think that, even with Paterno’s testimony, it’s not a given that a crime has occurred from their perspective, but Schultz certainly had enough information to find this suspicious enough to notify the police to investigate.
“Indecent contact” is a crime of intent, not merely a result crime. It’s a misdemeanor. Police would have to prove that there was genital or anal contact and that it was done for sexual gratification. They didn’t have proof of either in the 1998 case and, depending on what they were led to believe, one element may have been seemingly missing. Regardless of any reasonable belief, it would have been prudent to contact the police, and this duty falls on Schultz who oversaw them, and who was notified of the incident within 48 hours. Without a belief of an urgent situation of a child in imminent danger, I don’t exactly fault Paterno for notifying administrators the next day, and I don’t fault him if he developed a reasonable belief that a crime had not necessarily occurred and trusted his administrators to handle the contacts.
The real trouble I run into is where McQueary is told that Sandusky had is keys take away and thinks this is okay. Maybe this is evidence of acceptance of a cover-up, but it could also be evidence that he had convinced himself that he didn’t really see what he had originally thought and that this was truly an acceptable end to the situation.
So, I’ll correct, and say that this is at best a tragic abdication of responsibility based on a mistaken, but perhaps at the time reasonable, belief. I just don’t see a real motive to purposely cover this up unless there is evidence that PSU knew about victims other than victim 6 that they had already covered up.
November 14, 2011, 12:02 amjcc says:
@ Dan M -
“I will state unequivocally that anyone who was made aware that a rape may have occurred had a moral duty to call the police, including McQueary, his father, Paterno, Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and Raykovitz.”
OK, good. That’s really all I wanted to establish. Glad we agree.
BTW, law enforcement has mandatory reporting duties in some places too. In my state, a (validated) call to the 1-800 hotline for child (physical or sexual) abuse tips must result in the cops making a home visit within 24 hours, and reporting back to the state. That’s for a call anytime on any day. So, a call at midnight Saturday to Sunday sends a police investigator out before Monday morning. That’s how seriously the professionals take complaints alleging child abuse. Suggesting a substitution of your own (or any untrained civilian’s) uninformed judgement for this process is foolish, and ultimately, nonproductive in terms of protecting the children.
“…suspects do have rights…”
Yes, they do. But there is no right not to be investigated because it may get out and hurt a reputation. Allegations of crime always carry that baggage. Cops don’t get to decide who to investigate, because, you know, someone important or well known may get tarnished, even if no prosecution results. They take the case they’re given and do what they can to find the truth.
“…a thing called due process in this country…”
In the context of this discussion, I have no idea how you are trying to apply “due process.” Due process generally means that constitutional and statutory procedures and rights are respected and complied with. It governs how the government can focus its power upon the individual. Due process has nothing to do with whether an investigation can or will proceed even at risk of damage to reputation.
Nobody said anything about waterboarding or any of that other nonsense you’re spouting. And why would I be loathe to hear about rights and due process? I’d be interested to hear about your theory of how the children’s rights were respected by the PSU staff in this case, or how due process was somehow improved by a conspiracy of silence within the PSD Athletic Department and administration that kept the state from discovering that a crime had occurred, and duly beginning that process you mention?
November 14, 2011, 12:43 amRicardo says:
Gee, it almost seems like there should be, um, training classes precisely so that teachers can learn to detect the signs of abuse and neglect and know when to call CPS. I’m not sure about West Virginia or wherever you live but every teacher I know has undergone training as mandatory reporters. Ignorance is no excuse.
I worked part-time in campus security — we were technically employed by the Public Safety department which also ran the campus police. We periodically had meetings with a liaison cop and her advice really stuck with me: if you see anything that just doesn’t sit right with you or goes against your instincts of what normal behavior or activity is, call the police and let them determine whether it is something that needs to be investigated. There is never any harm in this and police catch a lot of dangerous people through seemingly innocuous tips from the public. A grown naked man taking a shower with a little boy on a Friday night when no one else is around — yup, that qualifies for more of a follow-up than a car alarm going off or the sound of breaking bottles in the parking lot at 2 am, never mind what else the man may have been doing.
November 14, 2011, 3:56 amJohn L. says:
Yes, as mandatory reporters we are expected to use our professional judgment in making hotline calls. We are allowed to distinguish between mere bad parenting and neglect, and between discipline with which we might disagree and actual abuse. If I’m not sure which to call it, though, I will make the call – not just to cover my ass, but to make sure that children are properly taken care of.
Sure, I’ll also consult other supervisors along the way, and they might provide me with new information that will change my understanding of the situation. But informing them doesn’t fulfill my obligations as a mandated reporter, either, if I consider the case worth calling in. I have often made calls to the hotline where I begin by saying, “Look, I’m not really sure if this is worth a report or not, but this is what I know…” Sometimes they take the case, sometimes they don’t. But that’s their call to make, not mine, according to the law. And generally their judgment is pretty good – though, obviously, your disdain for the law makes your judgment superior.
Contrary to popular belief, when a report is taken the standard response is not to swoop in and immediately break up the family.
But none of that is relevant to this case. A middle-aged man showering naked with an unrelated 10-year-old boy and having physical contact – whether described as anal sex or fondling – doesn’t fall into any kind of gray area.
November 14, 2011, 6:24 amDennisN says:
whit
[SHRUG] you have more confidence in the cops in a politically charged case than I do. Nevertheless, I have explained how I believe they would have handled it in this case, and that does not include inaction.
November 14, 2011, 7:49 amjukeboxgrad says:
dan:
I think it’s a stretch to read Paterno’s testimony (that Sandusky was seen “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) and interpret that as something that “may or may not have been criminal,” as if both of those interpretations are equally plausible. The words and the overall context indicate that one of those interpretations is much more plausible than the other.
His testimony, in context, is maybe not enough to make it “a given,” but it’s enough to make it a high likelihood. Therefore Paterno needed to make sure the police were called.
Fair enough. This is the key point.
Fair enough, but Paterno is also culpable. He knew or should have known that the police should be called, and he had the power to make that happen, and he failed to make that happen. He also knew or should have known that no one made any effort to identify and interview the child. This in itself is a big problem that isn’t getting mentioned much.
The motive for a coverup is easy to see. This was explained in the other thread.
November 14, 2011, 9:18 amdon Roberto says:
November 14, 2011, 9:26 amDesiderius says:
“In other words, the risk they would have incurred by speaking up was the risk that they might lose fewer football games going forward. Is there any better example of the absurdly overvalued status of college sports and sports in general in society today?”
About every other coach out there.
The pushback, as pathetic as it is, arises from the fact that it is the Tressels and Paternos being taken down, while the bad guys keep on keeping on.
November 14, 2011, 10:12 amDesiderius says:
Ricardo,
“if you see anything that just doesn’t sit right with you or goes against your instincts of what normal behavior or activity is, call the police and let them determine whether it is something that needs to be investigated. There is never any harm in this”
Please, Ricardo, you’re better than this.
We don’t teach all our children The Crucible because they enjoy it. There is great potential harm.
We are not a police state. There is a reason for that.
November 14, 2011, 10:17 amragebot says:
Well you did snip out the part of my post where I said I am no fan of the NCAA.
One of the reasons for this is I have seen how the NCAA has reacted in the past. One of the big gripes a lot of peeps have with PSU/Paterno/others is that did the minimum required; and this is something the NCAA is famous for.
Would you really expect the NCAA to say they had a commitment to the lowest levels of integrity?
But more to the point the NCAA has lots of rules about what schools can do. As an example when Charlie Pell was the coach at UF the NCAA slapped the university with serious sanctions for paying players, giving players gifts (like cars), and a whole host of other violations. Pell was fired and replaced by Galen Hall who lasted a couple of years at UF before the NCAA slapped UF with more sanctions. One charge of the multiple charges against Hall was that he made alimony payments for one of his players.
I have never seen anyone claim one person should not be allowed to make alimony payments for someone else, but it is against NCAA rules for a school to make alimony payments for an athlete; and I suspect most folks would agree with that.
Since 2004 Hall has been a coach at PSU, usually sitting beside Paterno in the sky box and calling plays for the football team. Paterno speaks highly of Hall and claims he got a raw deal at UF. Do you thing this exhibits a commitment to the highest level of integrity?
November 14, 2011, 10:26 amragebot says:
Hard to disagree with this.
With the additional details we now know about Sandusky it looks even worse.
November 14, 2011, 10:29 ambutternut says:
Penn State shall reap the harvest of its decades long culture dictating the actions, speech and, to the best of its ability, thought of those within its sphere of influence.
It is no wonder that a graduate assistant football coach did not drop a dime to the cops after witnessing an obvious felony. He was a student and as such had been indoctrinated by the school and provided rules which specifically limited his rights as a citizen. In an environment where rights are curtailed, the social contract is fractured. His responsibility to report the event, which would be a no brainer in the world at large, must be given to those who define his world.
As far as the coach, athletic director and college president, well, they make their livings being part of an institution that, by its own rule making, thwarts the development of the young people they are charged to instruct. Those individuals are not properly functioning human beings.
Higher education has been figuratively sodomizing those under its care for years.
November 14, 2011, 11:05 amRicardo says:
Police states are societies with some combination of no equivalent of Terry v. Ohio, no requirement of probable cause to search or arrest someone, and no procedural right for the accused to learn of and contest the accusations against him.
As jcc points out, there is no right against being investigated. If there were, this would put police in the absurd position of only investigating people who they already knew were guilty. A lot of people here jumped to Kitty Genovese excuses — hey, maybe there’s some completely innocent reason why a middle-aged man would be naked and taking a shower with an unrelated boy alone on a Friday evening. Maybe it was just innocent “horseplay.” Best to just put it out of mind.
November 14, 2011, 11:38 amjukeboxgrad says:
ragebot:
I cited the part that was relevant and omitted the parts that were not.
You’re doing that straw man thing again. Let’s review. Malvolio said this:
You responded as follows:
I interpret that as follows: ‘no, you’re wrong, it’s not NCAA’s role to make a judgment about this.’
I responded to you by pointing out that it is their role, according to their own statement of Core Values. You responded by pointing out that NCAA has done some other things that might be questionable. So what? That doesn’t address what Malvolio said, and it doesn’t explain how you responded to him, and it doesn’t address my response to you.
But maybe what you’ve been trying to say all along is that Malvolio is right, and I just misunderstood you.
==============
des:
A few people other than Paterno are “being taken down.” Like Sandusky, Curley, Schultz and Spanier. I think it’s a problem that McQueary is missing from that list, but other than that, what’s your complaint? Who are the other “bad guys” who “keep on keeping on?” And are you suggesting that Paterno’s penalty was too harsh?
November 14, 2011, 12:23 pmGoNittanyLions says:
Why don’t you take your high-and-mighty opinions and put them where the sun don’t shine?
November 14, 2011, 12:59 pmFran says:
What if it had been young girls getting raped?
Janice D’Arcy, of the Washington Post has an eye opening perspective.
November 14, 2011, 1:06 pmFran says:
What if it had been young girls getting raped?
Janice D’Arcy, of the Washington Post has an eye opening perspective.
November 14, 2011, 1:20 pmDan M. says:
In WV and PA it does. And in WV, failing to meet that obligation in the first place is not a civil cause of action.
Would you say that the incident in 1998 with #6 which was not criminal (but was civilly actionable, at the least) was consistant with what Paterno testified to being told in 2002? If so, is it not plausible to believe that no crime had occured this time, either?
Even if Paterno were a mandatory reporter, his duty would have been discharged by notifying his administrative superior the following day. If he did not expect a cover-up, then it was reasonable to conclude that an investigation took place and that it was concluded that a crime did not in fact occur. Therefore it would have been reasonable to not kick Sandusky completely off campus from his perspective.
November 14, 2011, 1:35 pmDan M. says:
In WV and PA it does. And in WV, failing to meet that obligation in the first place is not a civil cause of action.
Would you say that the incident in 1998 with #6 which was not criminal (but was civilly actionable, at the least) was consistant with what Paterno testified to being told in 2002? If so, is it not plausible to believe that no crime had occured this time, either?
Even if Paterno were a mandatory reporter, his duty would have been discharged by notifying his administrative superior the following day. If he did not expect a cover-up, then it was reasonable to conclude that an investigation took place and that it was concluded that a crime did not in fact occur. Therefore it would have been reasonable to not kick Sandusky completely off campus from his perspective.
November 14, 2011, 1:38 pmDan M. says:
In WV and PA it does. And in WV, failing to meet that obligation in the first place is not a civil cause of action.
Would you say that the incident in 1998 with #6 which was not criminal (but was civilly actionable, at the least) was consistant with what Paterno testified to being told in 2002? If so, is it not plausible to believe that no crime had occured this time, either?
Even if Paterno were a mandatory reporter, his duty would have been discharged by notifying his administrative superior the following day. If he did not expect a cover-up, then it was reasonable to conclude that an investigation took place and that it was concluded that a crime did not in fact occur. Therefore it would have been reasonable to not kick Sandusky completely off campus from his perspective.
November 14, 2011, 1:38 pmJudge Greg says:
There is also the fear that if one reports to the police after witnessing a crime, one will get the Lewinsky, Lucianne, Paula Jones, threatment. Or find oneself accused of the failing to intercede. Of if having interceded, accused of being the actual perp. If you think those things don’t go through the mind of the average citizen you are betting on a 50/50 outcome.
November 14, 2011, 2:47 pmragebot says:
I am not quite sure what kind of response you are expecting. The NCAA has a long list of rules and if they are violated the NCAA can (all though they do not always) impose sanctions.
There is no specific NCAA rule against having a child molester associated with the school. There is not even a rule against a convicted child molester associated with the school. Same goes for stuff like covering up for a child molester. There are some prohibitions for criminal offenses like gambling or associating with gambling, but in general a felon is allowed to play or coach.
I really do not see the core values thing as a nice idea, but have never seen any sanctions for core values violations, probably because it is so hard to determine what a violation would be.
On the other hand the NCAA does have specific prohibitions about what it calls “lack of institutional control”; and this is where you may want to look for possible NCAA sanctions.
November 14, 2011, 3:02 pmcampanile says:
Joe “The Buck Stops Where?” Paterno is unlikely the only big man on campus, about town, and PA icon who didn’t do the right thing after the 2002 child-rape report.
Sandusky’s Second Mile organization was big, and many important people contributed to and possibly benefited from it, for years before McQueary saw him do the filthy to a kid. How do Sandusky’s spend-the-nights and out-of-town trips with young boys and other allegedly brazen creepiness get overlooked and legally discounted for so long despite eyewitness accounts, if not for a number of friends in high places who do low things, too?
November 14, 2011, 3:07 pmRandy says:
Well, here’s one way: Sandusky is married with two kids. Therefore he must be a heterosexual. Everyone knows that only gay men sexually abuse young boys. Therefore, Sandusky would never and could never abuse young boys.
Not saying that’s what happened in this case because I wasn’t there for every allegation or thought process. But by the same token no one else was either.
Judging by the comments here and the other thread, that is clearly how many people think. In their zeal to paint gays as bad people, they actually end up giving cover to the real culprits. It is quite possible this is what happened here at least some of the time.
November 14, 2011, 3:28 pmjukeboxgrad says:
dan:
No. What we know about 1998 is that he hugged a boy in the shower. This is bad, but it’s not properly described as “fondled,” and it’s not properly described as “doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.” Those are the terms from Paterno’s testimony regarding 2002.
This is some weird logic. It amounts to this: ‘we let him get away with bad behavior before, so we might as well do it again.’
Let’s take a closer look at your reasoning, starting with this: “… no crime had occurred.” You are essentially asserting that no crime occurred in 1998. Really? Are you sure? How do you know? Actually, you don’t know. All you know is that the police investigation ended without charging him. Consider these possibilities:
A) The police let him go because it became clear that there was no crime.
B) The police had proof of a crime, but they let him go because of political pressure.
C) The police believed there was a crime, but they let him go because there was no witness other than the boy, and therefore the crime was going to be hard to prove.
A, B and C are all possible. You are assuming A and forgetting that A might be false and B or C might be true. Or some combination of B and C.
This brings us to a major difference between 1998 and 2002. In 1998 there was no witness (other than the boy). But in 2002 there was a witness. The lack of a witness in 1998 means that it might be reasonable to adopt an attitude like this: ‘we can’t really be too sure about exactly what happened, so in the end we might as well give Sandusky the benefit of the doubt.’ The statements accusing Sandusky are coming from the boy, and therefore there are reasons to be somewhat skeptical, because the source is both a child and also a victim, and therefore not objective.
But the presence of a witness in 2002 makes a big difference. The cited words (“fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy”) are based on the account of an objective observer, and therefore have more weight than statements which come from a child/victim.
So there are multiple reasons why your comparison doesn’t work.
And one more thing about this: “plausible to believe that no crime had occured this time.” That’s the wrong standard. Even if you think it was possible, or even probable, that there was no crime, you still need to ask this question: is there a distinct possibility that a serious crime occurred? The answer to this question is yes. Once you know this, there is an obligation to try to find out more. There needs to be some kind of investigation. That’s why it’s important to notice that no one tried to talk to the boy.
To me, this is a giant red flag indicating a deliberate coverup. If they had wanted to know more, they could have easily tried to find out more via the boy. Failing to talk to the boy indicates that they wanted to know as little as possible.
Given the gravity of the matter, and given Paterno’s power and importance, it’s not OK for him to just assume “that an investigation took place and that it was concluded that a crime did not in fact occur.” He needs to follow up, and inquire, and make sure that an actual investigation actually took place. It’s possible that he met his narrow legal obligation, but he had a moral duty to pay attention and make sure proper action was taken.
===============
judge:
It has already been pointed out on one or both threads that the police are always willing to accept anonymous tips.
===============
ragebot:
A clear one. Example: ‘yes, I agree with Malvolio that NCAA needs to do something about this.’
I think you’re agreeing that it would be proper for NCAA to do something, and it’s just a matter of what formal approach they would take.
November 14, 2011, 3:40 pmcampanile says:
Randy, most people are savvy enough to know that marriage and offspring don’t necessarily mean someone is hetero or not a pedophile or both. I have no idea the percentage breakdown between gay and straight sexual abuse of kids but would imagine there are more straight peds than gay, but that’s just an assumption that, unlike you, i believe most people make. In the case of men doing only little boys, though, I also think most of us would assume such compulsion to be homosexual in nature and not just about “access,” unless occurring in some strict sex-segregated environment. Perhaps as this case proceeds, we’ll see whether Sandusky had both girl and boy porn preferences. So far, reports seem to be that he preferred slim black young boys in person, for some reason.
My point was more that most adults raise eyebrows over other grown-ups, married or not, spending nighttimes with unrelated kids. There are reports of Sandusky taking young boys to out-of-town games and staying at the team hotels, and this had to raise all sorts of suspicions, especially after the 1998 investigation. My feeling is that many people “knew” the score but were either tragically too invested with Penn State and the football program, with Second Mile, and state politics or were also involved in unsavory conduct as well, possibly having gotten to put their hands on kids, as well. There could be a shared interest and mutual interests ring involved– or not– but Sandusky was a fairly high profile person with a semi-public proclivity and somehow he was able to act with near impunity, despite at least one investigation.
Am less inclined to view this through some gay-straight prism than to see it as a decades long tale of general corruption which just may neatly stop at Sandusky and wilfully blind friends and associates. But, oh, the credulity strained.
November 14, 2011, 4:33 pmDan M. says:
He didn’t just hug the boy in the shower. He lathered him up and washed his back. I think a lot of outside observers would describe that as “sexual” and “fondling” to see an naked old man doing that in the shower to a 10-year-old.
We have the grand jury testimony from Victim #6. None of the conduct described is a violation of Pennsylvania’s sex offense statutes, though any of it would have been civilly actionable as battery. I believe that the DA was correct not to press criminal charges in the case based on the victim’s grand jury testimony. The CPS investigator described the conduct as a “boundary issue.” But I believe that any outside observer could have described the known conduct as “fondling” and “something of a sexual nature.”
I make this determination because the lack of criminal charges is consistent with Victim #6′s testimony.
My opinion is that an objective observer would have been sufficiently creeped out by the lathering, hugging, etc. done to Victim 6, and would have described it consistently with Paterno’s testimony of his knowledge of Victim 2. So it would be consistent with “Jerry is being creepy again.”
An investigation should have occurred, yes. Schultz should have initiated it, and should have talked to McQueary earlier, and should have ultimately called police. Paterno, on the other hand, would not have been given updates of any investigation into a potential sex crime, and it’s not unreasonable of him not to follow up after putting it into the hands of administrators, and not unreasonable to assume that it was handled favorably and that Sandusky’s conduct was resolved as nothing beyond creepy.
Red flags, absolutely. Conclusive evidence? No. As I said before, Paterno wasn’t necessarily aware of the 1998 case, as Schultz clearly was, and wouldn’t have been privy to any investigation into sexual abuse, and unless he actually suspected there would be a cover-up, there was no reason to believe that he needed to nag administrators to make sure that they reported a potential crime when results of the investigation would not have been available to him until it was resolved.
November 14, 2011, 5:06 pmClark says:
We are now a police state if we report anal rape of 10 year olds by ~60 year olds to the police? Kitty Genovese will be proud of you, dear school teacher.
November 14, 2011, 5:07 pmDesiderius says:
Ricardo,
“A lot of people here jumped to Kitty Genovese excuses — hey, maybe there’s some completely innocent reason why a middle-aged man would be naked and taking a shower with an unrelated boy alone on a Friday evening. Maybe it was just innocent “horseplay.””
I believe you’re aware that I’m not even close to being in such a category. You’ll not get away with pretending away the very real harms of such a rule as you propose by painting those more willing to address them with that brush.
November 14, 2011, 5:36 pmDesiderius says:
You never fail to resort to 3rd grade level logical fallacies. I’m truly sorry that you’ve evidently never been able to engage productively with someone both not on your team and an with IQ over 80, but please refrain in the future from replying to my comments.
My comment was in reply to Ricardo’s claim of there being no conceivable harm in reporting any conduct anyone felt was “uncomfortable” or not “normal” to police.
Should I report your stalking of me here?
November 14, 2011, 5:42 pmragebot says:
Coulda, shoulda, woulda. I have never made any claim about what I think is proper, but I have posted what I think the NCAA would do in terms of possible punishment for PSU; nothing.
Way back at the beginning of this exchange I pointed out you snipped out my disclaimer that I am no fan of the NCAA.
A big part of the reason for this is the history of the NCAA handing out sanctions in ways that are not always easy to understand. I am not aware of any specific NCAA rule violation involving the Sandusky affair. I have never seen a “lack of institutional control” violation without underlying specific violation.
I would also point out that the NCAA often makes a loud noise and lets the school come up with the specific penalties, which the NCAA then agrees with. The current PSU prez has made it clear PSU thinks it has done enough in terms of punishing the football team.
Way back when Florida State was punished by the NCAA. Some folks thought the punishment was too harsh resulting in a court suit FSU won. Here is a link
http://www.aolnews.com/2009/08/20/court-rules-against-ncaa-in-florida-state-public-records-case/
Lots of stuff like threats that the NCAA would retaliate against FSU if the suit was not dropped, due process, and the sun shine law were issues so what the court did was no big surprise.
It would be nice if the NCAA had higher standards, but they do not. So what the NCAA will do is more important to me than what someone thinks they should do.
November 14, 2011, 5:44 pmjukeboxgrad says:
dan:
That’s not “fondled” and it’s not (by itself) “doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy.”
If all the information they have is what was given, they would only do that if they don’t believe in using words carefully.
You’re right, I was not taking into account that the same victim appeared later before the grand jury. So you are correct that we know that this incident was not criminal. But this is still no reason for Schultz et al to assume that the 2002 incident was also not criminal.
I disagree. Given the gravity of the matter, and given his power and position, he had a duty to inquire and make sure something was done. They might say ‘we can’t tell you anything’ but he at least needs to ask. As far as we know, he didn’t.
This is the key point, and I’m glad we agree about this.
==================
ragebot:
Your earlier response to Malvolio seemed to be about the latter, not the former, so I appreciate the clarification.
November 14, 2011, 6:00 pmDan M. says:
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I can’t imagine seeing a naked old man soap up a 10-year-old boy and not thinking that it’s incredibly creepy and sexual. And who knows exactly how a 75-year-old man interpreted the word “fondling” because it doesn’t necessarily imply genital contact. I wouldn’t hesitate to refer to any erotic touching of a young boy as “fondling.”
In hindsight, sure. He shouldn’t have needed to, though.
November 14, 2011, 6:39 pmRandy says:
Campanile: ” I have no idea the percentage breakdown between gay and straight sexual abuse of kids but would imagine there are more straight peds than gay, but that’s just an assumption that, unlike you, i believe most people make.”
I didn’t say that most people make these assumptions, only that some people do. It’s quite unfortunate, but I find that these sorts of assumptions are made pretty much exclusively by homophobes.
” In the case of men doing only little boys, though, I also think most of us would assume such compulsion to be homosexual in nature and not just about “access,” unless occurring in some strict sex-segregated environment. Perhaps as this case proceeds, we’ll see whether Sandusky had both girl and boy porn preferences. So far, reports seem to be that he preferred slim black young boys in person, for some reason.”
People can assume any thing that they choose, but that doesn’t mean the assumption is correct. As several people have pointed out, there is little or no correlation between sexual orientation and pedophilia — many men who identify as straight will sexually abuse young men. Even if these assumptions are correct, that ones sexual orientation towards adults is the same as for children, it would make Sundusky bisexual, as he appears to be straight in every other aspect, ie, married with children.
“My point was more that most adults raise eyebrows (SNIP) But, oh, the credulity strained.”
Totally agree with all your other points. Parents should NEVER assume that their children are safe with alone in the presence of another adult. There should always be at least two adults present with children, and parents should always check in with surprise visits. I don’t have any answers as to why people have acted the way they did, but they did.
November 14, 2011, 9:36 pmRandy says:
This whole incidence reminds me of the play Doubt which won several awards a few years ago. The basic plot in this one act play is a nun who is the head of the catholic school in 1950s suspects that a priest is sexually abusing an altar boy. The boy is a poor black student who is in the school on a scholarship.
When the nun confronts the mother with this possibility, the mother was rather nonchalant about it. The nun, incredulous, asks why? The mother responds that this educational opportunity is the best thing for her son, and above all, she cannot jeapordize that for his future. Although she wasn’t happy with the situation, the reality is that she is forced to choose among two bad outcomes, and she chooses the least worst, in her view.
The play is set up with out any clear answers and no easy moralizing. We all think we know the best morality and the best way to operate. But is reality always so easy? many people say yes. We have a circumstance here where at least some people say no.
November 14, 2011, 9:41 pmRicardo says:
Correct and there is not in a free society where there are procedural checks and limitations on what the police may do. I don’t call the cops when I’m in China. But San Francisco?
The real issue here is adult judgment. Some people have it and others apparently don’t. There were several 9/11 hijackers who — according to the 9/11 Commission Report — invited suspicion from at least airline check-in agents and immigration inspectors. This isn’t hindsight either — those people noted their suspicions in computer records at the time. People who are up to no good often throw off hints and some people just turn out to be much more skilled at detecting those hints than others. Of course there will be false positives — that’s why we have civil and procedural rights and police cannot even stop someone without at least reasonable suspicion.
November 14, 2011, 10:51 pmClark says:
If you think responding to comments on a public foum is stalking, then I seriously doubt your self evaluation that your IQ is above 80.
November 14, 2011, 11:27 pmrilkefan says:
I’ve written a dozen times that you’re mistakenly or (given how many times I’ve pointed this out) deceptively ascribing words to Paterno that came from the grand jury, and I think you’ve ignored them all. If I’m incorrect on this it would be nice for someone to let me know.
November 14, 2011, 11:40 pmClark says:
Ricardo said this:
We periodically had meetings with a liaison cop and her advice really stuck with me: if you see anything that just doesn’t sit right with you or goes against your instincts of what normal behavior or activity is, call the police and let them determine whether it is something that needs to be investigated. There is never any harm in this and police catch a lot of dangerous people through seemingly innocuous tips from the public. A grown naked man taking a shower with a little boy on a Friday night when no one else is around — yup, that qualifies for more of a follow-up than a car alarm going off or the sound of breaking bottles in the parking lot at 2 am, never mind what else the man may have been doing.
To claim that this is asking for anything close to a police state, and then going ad hominem and asking to be spared from a response to this kind of comment, while typical behavior of those who feel perennially persecuted, is not really worthy of respect or heed in the real world.
November 14, 2011, 11:46 pmDan M. says:
You are correct that those terms are not quotes from Paterno, but I’m not sure that they would state it that way if they weren’t mimicking what he said. But I don’t know why they wouldn’t just quote how he described it.
The Grand Jury quotes Schultz as saying that Paterno informed him and Curley of “disturbing” and “inappropriate” conduct.
November 14, 2011, 11:54 pmrilkefan says:
Sorry, “misleadingly”.
IANAL – who writes up what the grand jury concludes? Are they folks at an educational level equivalent to the commentariat here? I can well imagine Paterno said, “M said something to the effect that he’d seen Sandusky touching the boy in a creepy way – caressing him or maybe doing something sexual”, which was reported, accurately but perhaps misleadingly, as x or y.
November 15, 2011, 12:13 amrpt says:
I’m waiting for the tea party to object to the exorbitant salaries paid football coaches of public universities in most states.
November 15, 2011, 12:27 amDesiderius says:
Then why do you keep heeding me? Hmmm, I asked you to quit stalking me, but what do you know, another reply. More evidence for the restraining order.
I said there is a reason we don’t have a police state. That is not the same as claiming Ricardo is asking for one. We don’t have a police state because we don’t want to have to run to the police every time we feel “uncomfortable” nor do we want to be subjected to a society where everyone else does. Wanting that is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a police state.
We already treat our schools like prisons and make volunteers who want to help go through a demoralizing “guilty until proven innocent” process (paying $100 of their own money to get annual background checks, from, yes, the police) thanks to widespread concern about pedophilia that, like the TSA, is out of proportion to the threat while often failing to stop the actual perps.
Security theater for the children.
November 15, 2011, 6:10 amLn says:
“stop replying to me” is a pretty funny debating tactic during a pretty sustained back and forth
I’m going out on a limb here and saying that if you see an old man raping a little boy, call the police.
November 15, 2011, 7:29 amragebot says:
Media is reporting 10 new victims have surfaced today. It may be there are more victims than comments in this thread.
November 15, 2011, 8:38 amjukeboxgrad says:
rilkefan:
This is the entire paragraph from the grand jury report:
This is an example of what I have said:
That’s a correct statement, unless you think the grand jury has materially distorted Paterno’s testimony. As Dan pointed out, they are probably “mimicking what he said.”
“Caress” is a synonym for “fondle,” and there’s no material difference between “doing something sexual” and “doing something of a sexual nature.” So I don’t get what your problem is. In this example you provide, there is nothing ‘misleading.’
If there was a “maybe,” that should be included, and probably would have been included, and the “creepy way” should also be included.
==================
dan:
It would be better to do it that way, but it’s possible that he made a long, rambling statement that was hard to summarize in a readable way, using direct quotes. Maybe it was just easier to do it the way they did it. It’s a lot of work to create a report like that, and sometimes the writer is going to prefer an approach that’s simply easier. Which is OK, if he’s not materially distorting the actual testimony.
==================
desiderius:
Clark has already answered you, but I want to point out that you are implicitly inviting responses from any and all readers when you post a comment in a public forum. If you want to control who can reply to your comment, you need to have your own blog where you can delete responses you don’t like.
November 15, 2011, 8:50 amClark says:
Please. I implore you to try to get a restraining order on the grounds that your comments on a public blog thread were responded to.
You said, after explicitly quoting Ricardo that:
Please, Ricardo, you’re better than this.
We don’t teach all our children The Crucible because they enjoy it. There is great potential harm.
We are not a police state. There is a reason for that.
If this is not implying that Ricardo is encouraging a police state dynamic as you now claim, then what is it? Simply typical high strung melodrama and hyperbole?
November 15, 2011, 9:05 amDennis says:
I suspect that rather than a bipolar situation, or a slider with Het on one end and Homo on the other, these personality traits may better be described by three mutually orthogonal axes, labeled, Het, Homo, and Pedo. It seems to better describe observed bahaviour. It does seem to offend the Simplists, though.
Absolutely concur. This is the system the Boy Scouts adopted when we were caught (literally) with our pants down. It both protects the kids and protects the adults. We call it “Two Deep Leadership,” and it is mandatory at all times. The only time I’d seen single adult with Scouts was oin car trips, where there would be adult driver and as many Scouts as there were seatbelts. I’m not even sure they dare do that anymore, although the plethora of witnesses and lack of opportunity make it pretty safe.
November 15, 2011, 12:05 pmDennis says:
With today’s drudge report http://ca.news.yahoo.com/boy-2002-shower-incident-denied-abuse-sandusky-035602476.html that the so-called 2002 victim has come forward and stated that nothing untoward happened, the whole issue of McQueary’s cowardice becomes more complex.
Now I don’t know if this was the real “victim” or some well paid stooge. The whole thing stinks.
But if McQueary had pounded Sandusky into the red smear most of us probably feel would have been appropriate if he had been a child rapist, and the child victim then swore there was no rape, then McQueary would probably still be in prison. I wonder if he thought that at the time.
Don’t f**k with the gods, or you may be destroyed.
November 15, 2011, 12:38 pmLN says:
Hahaha. “Who was the boy getting raped in the shower back in 2002? It was me — and trust me, nothing happened! How do I know? I was there! Who has more credibility than I do?”
November 15, 2011, 12:42 pmjimmy says:
For what it is worth, a grand jury usually does not inform the target of a prosecution before making their decision; they usually measure if there’s enough evidence to indict, not to convict. And if they only interview witnesses that are cooperative, it’s entirely possible none of the other principals were made aware of the investigation.
November 15, 2011, 11:19 pmJohn Herbison says:
As I have commented before, I am puzzled that the Penn State scandal, which so far has involved accusations as to one child rapist, has captured public attention and condemnation far beyond the Catholic Church scandal which involves God only knows how many abusers of children, employed by an institution which so far has paid out billions of dollars in tort judgments or settlements paid to avoid trials.
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-bishop-gets-deal-avoid-criminal-charges-012323009.html
Despite this acknowledgement of institutional culpability for heinous conduct, hundreds of millions of Americans still affiliate with and finance this scandal ridden institution.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to how the Roman Catholic Church has largely avoided the degree of obloquy that has recently been heaped upon Penn State?
November 15, 2011, 11:32 pmJoshua says:
If there was a rape going on, there would almost certainly be DNA evidence of it in the victim’s body (and maybe on Sandusky’s too, provided the shower didn’t wash it away), which would surely be enough to condemn Sandusky even if the victim denied it. Granted, McQueary may not have considered that point, so I can’t completely dismiss your argument.
November 16, 2011, 1:25 amClark says:
You know the housing market is bad when an upstanding, good, noble citizen like Joe Pa is forced to sell his house for a measly $1. And apparently, the only buyer he could find even at that prize was his wife. I am sure it has nothing to do with civil liability for shielding pedophiles. Which, of course, Joe Pa would never do.
November 16, 2011, 9:55 amDennis says:
I agree with you on technical grounds. I think McQueary felt himself undae a lot of pressure. I think he failed to stand up to his responsibilities as a human.
His recent self serving statement that he did actually stop the rape, just not then and there, is telling. He basically admitted to walking away from a child being raped, after looking that kid in the face.
I think that, if I had done that, I’d have considered shooting myself, afterwards.
November 16, 2011, 12:17 pmDWG says:
Mr. French conveniently ignores the most ignored molestation incident of this filthy affair: the 2000 incident in which the custodian named Calhoun witnessed Sandusky molesting another child, immediately reported it to a supervisor who witnessed enough of Sandusky being in the shower and leaving with the child hand in hand to corroborate Calhoun’s account, then both reported it to a higher supervisor. The only action taken by the supervisors to advise Calhoun who to report the incident to (so far, no indication as to whether it was the cops, human resources or another authority).
Calhoun, described in the grand jury transcripts as a Korean War vet who saw considerable action, blood and gore, was described as distraught, crying and so emotionally upset that the supervisor worried that he would have a heart attack.
There is no record yet that Mr Calhoun reported the incident, and he was not called to testify because he is currently in a nursing home suffering from dementia.
Perhaps Mr. Calhoun suffered from delayed adolescence as well. Or perhaps we are more like the Germans in Nazi Germany than we care to admit to ourselves.
November 17, 2011, 8:30 am