The Sex Abuse Scandal at PSU

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faison1

Who knows what happened? Maybe the story JoePa was given was that the kid in the shower was 18. Let's say that was the case. Would you go to the Police or D.A. then?

---

We know that's not the case. The grand jury reported that Paterno testified to telling Curley that the allegations involved "fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a young boy."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sagegrouse

Not a hard question. In this case, your responsibility is to your stockholders, primarily, and secondarily, to your employees for the health of the business and their safety on the job. You go to the police or DA (through your lawyers). In Joe Pa's case, he was not the CEO -- that responsibility lies with the AD or the University President. I am not nearly certain, however, that Paterno did enough. I don't see how he can wash his hands of the case merely by telling the AD. In hindsight, he should have done much more.

sagegrouse

---

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

---

A very good summary and reflects well my thoughts at this point.

I tried to make the point previously, in football terms, that the "handoff" from the grad. assistant and Paterno to the Athletics Director was weak or sloppy, but that the ball did get to the Athletics Director. The fumble at that point is inexplicable.
Even with vague details, there was enough to have a full investigation and notify local police. It didn't happen.

Paterno is the focus of considerable scrutiny on this, but I believe the role of the University President, Graham Spanier, needs to be evaluated also.
Did he hear from the Athletics Director and his administrator Schultz about this?
Why did Spanier say this weekend that he fully supported those two, and expected them to be cleared of all charges.
Spanier's academic background is in sociology and family matters; surely he could have provided perspective and perhaps sounded more of an alarm when even basic details of the incident reached him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roywhite

Paterno is the focus of considerable scrutiny on this, but I believe the role of the University President, Graham Spanier, needs to be evaluated also.
Did he hear from the Athletics Director and his administrator Schultz about this?
Why did Spanier say this weekend that he fully supported those two, and expected them to be cleared of all charges.
Spanier's academic background is in sociology and family matters; surely he could have provided perspective and perhaps sounded more of an alarm when even basic details of the incident reached him.

---

Spanier actually used the word "unconditional" to describe his support of Curley and Schwartz. I get the desire to defend coworkers (friends?) you admire and respect, but given the circumstances his statement was inappropriate and tone deaf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain.

---

I guess I still don't understand this. At the very BEST, Paterno was told that a former assistant, who runs a well-known charity for boys was seen "horsing around" in the shower, naked, with a young boy.

Is it honestly that hard to put two and two together? Is it that hard to put a call into the police and say, "You might want to take a look at this guy." At the very least, he's a pervert who shouldn't be allowed young boys.

Live video of the AG's office discussing the investigation.

Here are my early guesses:

Paterno will be allowed to resign at the end of the season; if the grad asst told him about the sex, and he didn't pursue it beyond reporting it to the AD, then he should be prosecuted. He won't be because he's a legend, etc, but, after decades of watching priests go to prison for the same thing, he should've known the rules.

The other two PSU guys are clearly cooked, and I'm guessing at least one will go to jail for perjury.

And I'd also guess the University president will be forced to resign after this comment:

"University representatives released a statement from Spanier on Saturday calling the allegations against Sandusky “troubling” and adding that Curley and Schultz had his unconditional support.

He predicted they will be exonerated."

if they aren't exonerated, which seems likely, then the president will be forced to confront that he leads a corrupt system. While we can--and have--complained about Brodhead's neutrality/lack of support with the lax case, Spanier's comments are precisely why Brodhead didn't provide unconditional support to the Duke students; an indictment generally means very bad news, so how could he know that Nifong would commit malpractice? If he'd given unconditional support" to rapists, he'd have been fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so.

---

Given the nature of the crime and the relationships between the people involved, I'm not sure this is a good way to look at this. If your program's graduate assistant (who you may have later made an assistant coach) tells you your right hand man for over 30 years is abusing a boy in your locker room showers, can we agree that's not just 'someone' witnessing a 'crime'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCFinARL

In hindsight, yes--but of course hindsight is always a lot clearer than the way things look at the time. I don't see any justification for covering Paterno with glory here, but I also don't see anything clearly justifying some posters' suggestions that Paterno should be fired immediately or even criminally prosecuted. His most recent statement says he did was not told the exact details of the incident by the GA; assuming that is true, we could argue that he should have asked, but it's also fairly easy to understand how the GA might not have wanted to describe the situation exactly to the 73-year-old coach he may well have revered, and that Paterno, upset to hear such an allegation against a former close colleague, may not have asked.

If he did not understand the severity of the incident, he may well have believed that he had done enough when he reported it up the chain. Again--that's not to say that we would think he did enough now, but that at the time it would not have been grossly outside the normal behavior range of a fundamentally decent, flawed (as we all are) person to conclude that he had done enough. And there's been no indication that he was involved in the follow up meeting of Curley and Schultz with the GA or in any decisions that arose from it.

And since he was not, in fact, a witness to the incident, he may have thought it would be inappropriate to contact the police directly. I'm not sure I would call the police if someone else told me they had witnessed a crime--though I might suggest that they do so. In the end, the GA is the person the police would have had to talk to anyway. Again--I'm not saying he did the right thing, just that he may not have (and I'm not sure I would have) preceived that he wasn't doing the right thing.

If more comes out, of course, that's a different story. But if no other shoe drops, it seems to me the second guessing Paterno is doing about his actions (or inaction) and the pain of seeing the school and program he has devoted his life too fall under such a deep cloud of shame may be an appropriate level of punishment for his role.

---

I agree with your points. Of course, Joe Pa should not face criminal charges. No, he should not be summarily dismissed for this event. But I think he had two "appropriate" courses -- neither one taken. One was to be all over the AD in following up after he met with him re Sandusky. I.e., he should have seen it as a threat, not only to young boys, but also to the University (which, of course, it has become). Or, gotten every last detail from the GA, taken notes, and used those notes to talk to both the AD and the police. I think other coaches would have handled it in these ways, including K and other Duke coaches. Another poster made this point.

This season could be his last act, however, since the hierarchy in the University and the athletic department are likely to change. Those changes could be a signal to retire.

sagegrouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PADukeMom

If JoePa reported what he was informed of in 2004 but Sandusky was not part of the team since 1999, how can this possibly taint JoePa? Once he reported it to the higer authorities the ball was not in their court.

---

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wander

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

---

Not picking on just you, but could the next poster that suggests Paterno could or should be prosecuted please explain to all of us what information s/he has that not only calls into question prosecutors' praise of Paterno, but also demonstrates you have more knowledge about his actions than they do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wander

For god's sake, we're not talking about finding out that your quarterback got a free tattoo or cheated on his problem set, we're talking about covering up the raping of children. There isn't enough font size or capital letters to appropriately convey this.

If the grand jury testimony is accurate, then at best Paterno displayed enough of a lack of leadership such that he shouldn't be allowed to coach an intramural sports team, and at worst should be criminally prosecuted. If.

---

Paterno has been a figurehead coach for some time. He was probably about to resign anyway. If there was any coverup on the part of the football staff, it probably wasn't him. The graduate assistant who saw the incident is now an assistant coach, hmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SMO

Do you think the praising authorities might know something about Paterno's actions that we do not?

---

Bingo. Don't jump on somebody's actions until you know all the facts. One scenario that I would find plausible (and still allow Paterno to keep his "human being in good standing sticker): Paterno reported the allegations to his superiors. Either they get back with Joe and report that things were not as the GA reported, or Joe asks them in a day or three and they tell him things are fine. Joe (not being the kind who convicts people on flimsy or no evidence like some on this board are willing to do) takes them at their word, since their dealings with him have always seemed to be conducted with honor.

I'm not saying this is how it happened, but I would believe it before I would believe that Joe Paterno willingly protected a child molester. That's just me, thinking that a lifetime of goodwill and honor AT LEAST allows Paterno to be considered "innocent" rather than a helpmate to Sandusky. To me it seems foolish and intractible to be demanding that Paterno resign or that he be fired. There are things to know before we can thoughtfully make an appraisal of any type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cspan37421

I share this concern. Reading in the grand jury presentation, it uses what, to me, is a telling turn of phrase. It says that Paterno called the AD to his home to inform him "the very next day." [page 7] The use of the modifier "very" is unnecessary in a factual report. It gives almost a defensive tone to the sentence. Its inclusion suggests to me that the author (desperately?) wishes to give the impression that Paterno acted quickly.

One hopes that there is some positive stuff we don't know about - people who tried to do the right thing, including JoePa. But I think most of us know enough about cognitive dissonance to understand that it would be very hard for anyone in that area to throw JoePa under the bus for (arguably) doing the minimum - reporting it to his boss, and (possibly) nothing else. He is revered in PA, not only for his record-setting accomplishments, but for doing so while running a cleaner program than many (for its level of success), and for his character and integrity. It's hard to call those into question when you have such emotional investment in the guy.

In time hopefully we'll have a better impression of who reported what, to whom, and when.

---

I expect that what would make it harder to throw JoePa under the bus woud be his honesty and integrity, judged by a lifetime of works and examples. In other words, JoePa may have done everything right. Incredible, I know, but maybe true all the same.

There are some incredible details emerging...how about the fact that it appears that some of the allegations made it all the way to the DA of Centre County, Ray Grircar, who never acted on them. Why? We'll never know, because Griarcar went missing in April 2005 and was declared assumed dead this past July.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Gricar
"Gricar was reported missing to authorities after failing to return home from a road trip. His car was found in Lewisburg with his cell phone inside, and his laptop computer was found in the adjacent Susquehanna River; other than that, very little trace of Gricar has been found. After being missing for over six years with no trace of his whereabouts, Centre County authorities declared Gricar legally dead on July 25, 2011."

I am not saying that the two incidents are connected, it just adds intrigue to this horrendous case and investigation.

You know who seems to have done their job? The Keystone Central School District and the post-Grircar DAs office of Centre County, PA, who followed-up a kid and his mother's complaint after the mother realised Sandusky had showered with her son and launched the 3-year investigation that led to this arrest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Dat

...his laptop computer was found in the adjacent Susquehanna River; other than that, very little trace of Gricar has been found.

---

His hard drive had been removed from the laptop and was unreadable. Searches made on Gricar's home computer in the weeks before his disappearance included "how to wreck a hard drive" and "water damage to a notebook computer". Is that odd or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob blue devil

i'm definitely not with you here.

---

We must have a Pennsylvania lawyer on board. Is there a Pennsylvania statute that required JoPa to report this to the police or some agency? Is there a statute that required him to do more than he did? I'm not saying that complicance with Pennsylvania law, if that is the case, was morally sufficient but I think the legal standard is a good starting point to evaluate this mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sagegrouse

In the event that this is curtains for Joe Pa, let me tell my one Joe Paterno story.

My friend Dick Smith, who is a few years older, was at a camp in New England in the 1940s, and Joe Paterno, then a quarterback at Brown, was his counselor. Dick's mother was very ill, which was one of the reasons Dick was sent to camp. Unhappily, his mother passed away, and Joe Paterno pesonally delivered the word.

Fast forward 30 or 35 years. My friend, who had an advertising firm, was at Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Jersey for a meeting. Joe Paterno was also in the reception area, so Dick approached the Coach and said, "My name is Dick Smith. I don't know if you remember me, but you were my camp counselor." "Oh my God," said Paterno, "How could I forget?" I think Paterno is a very decent human being.

sagegrouse

---

I'm sure this is but one of hundreds of good deeds Joe Pa has done over the decades, and yet, his legacy will be irreparably tarnished at best over this. It's a shame. But why didn't he do more? I suspect we'll learn a lot more in the weeks and months ahead.

Living in PA, I know more than a few Penn State fans, and a few of them were, let's say, less than charitable during the the LAX case particularly at the beginning. Karma is what it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartyClark

We must have a Pennsylvania lawyer on board. Is there a Pennsylvania statute that required JoPa to report this to the police or some agency? Is there a statute that required him to do more than he did? I'm not saying that complicance with Pennsylvania law, if that is the case, was morally sufficient but I think the legal standard is a good starting point to evaluate this mess.

---

I'm not a Pennsylvania lawyer, and my familiarity with this area of the law comes from advising (Missouri) school districts about their responsibility to report suspected child abuse to the proper juvenile authorities. The Missouri statute makes all teachers, principals, and other school officials mandated reporters. The statute says that the "person in charge" (principal, usually) is to be notified immediately, and then that person is supposed to make the report, or see to it that it is made. (Often times that responsibility will be delegated to a counselor or assistant principal.) If Paterno did notify the A.D., and if Paterno was told that the required report was made, I don't see any liability upon Paterno, if the Pennsylvania statute is similar.

Under the Missouri statute, it is also clear that anyone can make a report. The statute doesn't require literally every individual to make a report, undoubtedly because it doesn't make sense for six people, who all have the same basic information, to make, and for the Children's Division to receive and investigate, six identical reports.

I'm certainly not a Pennsylvania lawyer but my understanding is that the law on who MUST report suspected (suspected is a key word here) child abuse varies from state to state. For example, Utah law, I believe, requires ANY person with suspicions to report it to authorities while Vermont and maybe Pennsylvania (I don't know for sure so don't quote me) have MANDATED REPORTERS...that is, people, due to their contact with children (doctors, teachers, etc) are required by law to report any suspected abuse.

Assessing the legal obligations of JoePa, the GA, the janitors, etc would probably start with whether or not Pennsylvania has a mandated reporters vs. any person requirement and then whether said individuals qualify as "mandated reporters." Note, my understanding is that reporting to authorities means the police or child services professionals, not your immediate superior. So, depending on the law, it is entirely possible that JoePa, the GA, the janitors, etc could all be legally held responsible for not reporting.

That's my two cents on the legal angle from what I understand. Morally, I have to agree with those posters who said when a crime of this magnitude is involved, you do everything you can to see it is investigated by the proper personnel.